CVFPP Plan of Flood Control

June 2012
2012 Central Valley

Flood Protection Plan
A Path for Improving Public Safety, Environmental Stewardship,
and Long-Term Economic Stability
Cover Photo: Sacramento Weir (December 23, 1964), DWR Photo Lab
The Sacramento Weir and Bypass discharges excess flows from the
Sacramento River (on the left) into the Yolo Bypass (not shown).
The 1964-65 water year was marked by one of the most disastrous floods in Californias history.
2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan
June 2012
This document was prepared for submission to the

Central Valley Flood Protection Board
Pursuant to the California Central Valley
Flood Protection Act of 2008
by
Mark W. Cowin
Director, Department of Water Resources
The California Natural Resources Agency
State of California
Gary B. Bardini
Deputy Director
Department of Water Resources
Preparation Team
Keith E. Swanson Eric S. Koch

Chief, Division of Flood Management FloodSAFE Program Management Office
Paul A. Marshall Noel M. Lerner

Assistant Division Chief Chief, Flood Maintenance Office
Jeremy M. Arrich Arthur Hinojosa

Chief, Central Valley Flood Planning Office Chief, Hydrology and Flood Operations Office
Merritt P. Rice Michael Sabbaghian

Project Manager, Central Valley Flood Acting Chief, Flood Projects Office
Protection Plan
JUNE 2012 PAGE i

This page left blank intentionally.
PAGE ii JUNE 2012

Foreword
More than one million Californians live and work in the floodplains of the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley where flood risks are among the highest in
the nation. In response to this threat to people, property and the environment,
the Central Valley Flood Protection Act of 2008 directed the Department of
Water Resources (DWR) to prepare the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan
(CVFPP) for Central Valley Flood Protection Board adoption. The CVFPP is
the most comprehensive flood management planning effort ever undertaken in
California, addressing flood risks in an integrated manner while concurrently
improving ecosystem functions, operations and maintenance practices, and
institutional support for flood management.
In preparing the CVFPP, DWR examined a range of potential approaches for

improving flood management. The recommended approach known as the State Systemwide Investment
Approach (SSIA) sets forth a strategy for responsibly meeting the States objectives to improve public
safety, ecosystem conditions, and economic sustainability, while recognizing the financial challenges facing
local, State, and federal governments today. Under this approach, California will prioritize investments in
flood risk reduction projects and programs that incorporate ecosystem restoration and multi-benefit projects,
without precluding future actions, such as those presented in the Enhance Flood System Capacity Approach,
should additional State and federal funding become available.
The SSIA outlines a sustainable flood management strategy that will support Californias vital agricultural
economy, maintain agricultural land uses, limit growth in undeveloped floodplains, and provide policies,
programs, and incentives to encourage wise long-term floodplain management. The SSIA includes
significant capital investments to strengthen levees that protect existing urban areas and small communities,
prioritizing improvements to the 1,600-mile levee system included in the State Plan of Flood Control. The
SSIA also will help improve system resiliency in the face of climate change by expanding flood conveyance
capacities, coordinating reservoir operations, and restoring floodplains.
In the coming years, DWR will continue to work collaboratively with local, State, and federal agencies,
environmental interests, and other parties to develop regional flood management plans and focus invest-
ments on expanding flood bypasses to lower flood risks in flood prone areas. In addition, DWR will
continue to refine the CVFPP as projects and policies evolve, additional information is gathered, elements
are implemented, and funding becomes available.
With the support and cooperation of partnering and permitting agencies, property owners, interest groups,
and the public at large, DWR is committed to making real improvements every year including stronger
levees, enhanced flood capacity, a healthier ecosystem, improved preparations for and responses to flood
emergencies, greater resiliency, and leaner, more efficient operations. With Californias first-ever CVFPP,
we have a path for improving public safety, environmental stewardship, and long-term economic stability.
Mark W. Cowin, Director
JUNE 2012 PAGE iii

A Framework for Flood Risk Reduction
On behalf of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (Board) I am pleased
to announce that the 2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP) was
adopted by the Board on June 29, 2012, prior to the date required in Water
Code 9612(b). The CVFPP, as modified by Board Resolution 2012-25, meets
the legislative requirements outlined in the Central Valley Flood Protection
Act of 2008.
The Board appreciates the efforts of the Department of Water Resources

(DWR) to prepare and deliver the CVFPP to the Board prior to the January 1,
2012 legislative deadline, and congratulates DWR for their work to produce
the first comprehensive framework for system-wide flood management and
flood risk reduction in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins.
The Board conducted an extensive public review and comment process over the past six months, and would
like to thank the many stakeholders and public representing agricultural, city and county, conservation,
environmental, flood control, landowner, recreation and water supply interests who provided valuable
comments, letters of support, constructive criticism, and detailed reviews of the proposed CVFPP. The
adopted CVFPP is not just a State government plan, but one which considers the views, goals, and hearts
of the people of California living, working and contributing to the quality of life in our Central Valley.
Implementation of the 2012 CVFPP, and development of future five-year updates, will require ongoing
cooperation and collaboration between the Board, DWR, our stakeholders, and the public to construct
effective improvements to our flood control infrastructure with measureable reductions in levels of residual
flood risk to our urban areas, small communities, and rural agricultural lands.
Since its creation as The Reclamation Board in 1911 to its rebirth as the Central Valley Flood Protection
Board in 2008 through today, the Board has cooperated with DWR, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
numerous federal, State and local agencies, and non-government organizations to control flooding along the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries, to cooperatively establish, plan, construct, operate,
and maintain flood control works, and to maintain the integrity of existing flood risk reduction infrastructure
and designated floodways in the Central Valley. The Board is committed to providing an ongoing public
forum for the development, integration and implementation of regional and systemwide planning efforts,
and construction of eventual project improvements to reduce flood risk, preserve rural agriculture, protect
and restore our environment, maximize federal and State cost-sharing, and to seek needed regulatory
reform and reduced insurance rates for rural and small communities located in the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain. We look forward to continuing and expanding our partnerships
with our stakeholders and the public.
William H. Edgar, President
PAGE iv JUNE 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
1.0 Responding to the Need for Improved Flood Management
in the Central Valley................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 What is the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan?........................................................1-1
1.2 Setting and Historical Context......................................................................................1-2
1.3 Assets Protected by State Plan of Flood Control..........................................................1-7
1.4 Current Problems and Future Trends Facing State Plan of Flood Control.....................1-7
1.5 States Interest in Integrated Flood Management........................................................1-20
1.6 Formulation of 2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan.............................................1-21
2.0 Preliminary Approaches............................................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Management Actions...................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Purposes of Preliminary Approaches............................................................................2-2
2.3 Preliminary Approach: Achieve State Plan of Flood Control
Design Flow Capacity...................................................................................................2-3
2.4 Preliminary Approach: Protect High Risk Communities................................................2-6
2.5 Preliminary Approach: Enhance Flood System Capacity...............................................2-10
2.6 Comparison of Preliminary Approaches........................................................................2-13
2.7 Preferred Approach Meeting Central Valley Flood Protection Plan Goals.................2-25
2.8 Key Implications for State Systemwide Investment Approach.....................................2-28
3.0 State Systemwide Investment Approach................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Major Physical Improvements in Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins...............3-1
3.2 Urban Flood Protection.................................................................................................3-2
3.3 Small Community Flood Protection..............................................................................3-9
3.4 Rural-Agricultural Area Flood Protection.......................................................................3-10
3.5 System Improvements.................................................................................................3-12
3.6 Non-State Plan of Flood Control Levees ......................................................................3-18
3.7 Integrating Ecosystem Restoration Opportunities with Flood Risk
Reduction Projects........................................................................................................3-21
3.8 Climate Change Adaption Strategy...............................................................................3-22
3.9 Considerations for Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.......................................................3-24
3.10 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Levee Vegetation Policy and
Public Law 84-99 Eligibility...........................................................................................3-25
3.11 Residual Risk Management..........................................................................................3-29
3.12 Estimated Cost of State Systemwide Investment Approach........................................3-30
3.13 Performance of State Systemwide Investment Approach............................................3-32
3.14 State Systemwide Investment Approach Benefits.......................................................3-38
3.15 Land Use......................................................................................................................3-43
4.0 Implementing and Managing the State Systemwide Investment Approach........ 4-1
4.1 Flood Management Programs......................................................................................4-1
4.2 Levee Vegetation Management Strategy......................................................................4-13
4.3 Removal and Addition of State Plan of Flood Control Facilities....................................4-16
4.4 Refining Flood System Investments.............................................................................4-18
JUNE 2012 PAGE v

2012 CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION PLAN
4.5 2007 2011 Accomplishments and Near-Term Priority Actions

(2012 through 2017)......................................................................................................4-27
4.6 Estimated Costs and Time to Implement.....................................................................4-33
4.7 Financing Strategy for Implementing State Systemwide Investment Approach..........4-36
4.8 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan Approvals and Partner Roles
and Responsibilities......................................................................................................4-40
4.9 Implementation Challenges and Uncertainties.............................................................4-41
5.0 Acronyms and Abbreviations................................................................................... 5-1
Appendix A:
Central Valley Flood Protection Board Adoption
Resolution 2012-25, Amending and Adopting the
2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, June 2012
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Overview of State Plan of Flood Control......................................................................1-10
Table 2-1. Major Elements of Preliminary Approaches.................................................................2-14
Table 2-2. Residual Risk Management..........................................................................................2-16
Table 2-3. Estimated Cost of Approaches.....................................................................................2-17
Table 2-4. Relative Comparison of Preliminary Approach Contributions to Central Valley
Flood Protection Plan Primary Goal..............................................................................2-21
Table 2-5. Comparison of Preliminary Approach Contributions to Central Valley Flood
Protection Plan Supporting Goals and Completeness..................................................2-22
Table 2-6. Relative Comparison of Preliminary Approach Sustainability........................................2-23
Table 3-1. Key Characteristics of Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins...............................3-2
Table 3-2. Major Physical and Operational Elements of Preliminary Approaches and
State Systemwide Investment Approach.....................................................................3-3
Table 3-3. Non-State Plan of Flood Control Urban Levees............................................................3-19
Table 3-4. Residual Risk Management for State Systemwide Investment Approach...................3-29
Table 3-5. Estimated Costs of State Systemwide Investment Approach......................................3-31
Table 3-6. Summary of State Systemwide Investment Approach Sustainability
Compared with No Project...........................................................................................3-35
Table 3-7. Summary of Contributions of State Systemwide Investment Approach to
Central Valley Flood Protection Plan Goals Compared with No Project........................3-36
Table 4-1. State Systemwide Investment Approach Cost Estimates by Element.........................4-33
Table 4-2. State Systemwide Investment Approach Cost Estimates by Region...........................4-34
Table 4-3. State Systemwide Investment Approach
Range of Investments over Time..................................................................................4-39
Table 4-4. State Investments over Time........................................................................................4-40
PAGE vi JUNE 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures
Figure 1-1. Rollout of Future Programs...........................................................................................1-2
Figure 1-2. Chronology of Flood Management-Related Actions in Central Valley...........................1-4
Figure 1-3. Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Hydrographs.......................................................1-6
Figure 1-4. State Plan of Flood Control Facilities, Sacramento River Basin....................................1-8
Figure 1-5. State Plan of Flood Control Facilities, San Joaquin River Basin....................................1-9
Figure 1-6. Geographic Distribution of Assets and Population Protected by
State Plan of Flood Control Facilities............................................................................1-11
Figure 1-7. Summary of Physical Levee Conditions Based on Levee Evaluations
Program Results...........................................................................................................1-13
Figure 1-8. Contributing Documents..............................................................................................1-22
Figure 1-9. Geographic Scope of Central Valley Flood Protection Plan...........................................1-23
Figure 1-10. Communication and Engagement Process...................................................................1-25
Figure 2-1. Levee Conditions Considered in Achieve State Plan of Flood Control
Design Flow Capacity Approach...................................................................................2-5
Figure 2-2. Urban Areas and Small Communities Included in Protect High Risk
Communities Approach................................................................................................2-8
Figure 2-3. Ecosystem Improvement and Restoration Projects are Integrated
into Risk Reduction Projects Throughout the System...................................................2-11
Figure 2-4. Simulated Peak Flow and Stage Changes in Sacramento River Basin
for 100-year Storm Events............................................................................................2-19
Figure 2-5. Simulated Peak Flow and Stage Changes in San Joaquin River Basin
for 100-year Storm Events............................................................................................2-20
Figure 2-6. Performance Comparison for Preliminary Approaches.................................................2-24
Figure 2-7. Relative Cost and Performance of Three Preliminary Approaches................................2-25
Figure 2-8. Formulation and Comparison of Approaches to Flood Management
in Central Valley.............................................................................................................2-26
Figure 3-1. State Systemwide Investment Approach Sacramento River Basin
Major Capital Improvements under Consideration.......................................................3-5
Figure 3-2. State Systemwide Investment Approach San Joaquin River Basin
Major Capital Improvements under consideration........................................................3-6
Figure 3-3. Non-State Plan of Flood Control Levees Protecting Portions of
State Plan of Flood Control Planning Area....................................................................3-20
Figure 3-4. Changes in Peak Floodflows and Stages No Project Versus State
Systemwide Investment Approach for Various Storm Events
Sacramento River Basin................................................................................................3-33
Figure 3-5. Changes in Peak Floodflows and Stages No Project Versus State
Systemwide Investment Approach for Various Storm Events
San Joaquin River Basin...............................................................................................3-34
Figure 3-6. Performance Comparison for All Approaches...............................................................3-37
Figure 3-7. Relative Comparison of State Systemwide Investment Approach and
Preliminary Approach Efficiency...................................................................................3-37
Figure 3-8. Components of Economic Analysis..............................................................................3-40
Figure 4-1. Flood Management Programs and Their Relative Contributions to
State Systemwide Investment Approach Implementation...........................................4-9
Figure 4-2. Planning and Implementing Flood Risk Reduction Projects.........................................4-19
JUNE 2012 PAGE vii

Figure 4-3. Central Valley Flood Protection Plan Implementation Regions based on
Flood Protection Zones.................................................................................................4-21
Figure 4-4. Preparing Basin-Wide Feasibility Studies Leading to Implementation..........................4-24
Figure 4-5. Five-Year Cycle for Investment and Central Valley Flood Protection Plan.....................4-27
Figure 4-6. State Systemwide Investment Approach Investments by Element.............................4-34
Figure 4-7. State Systemwide Investment Approach Potential Cost-Sharing by Agency................4-38
Attachments
Volume I: Attachments 1 through 6
Attachment 1: Legislative Reference
Attachment 2: Conservation Framework
Attachment 3: Documents Incorporated by Reference
Attachment 4: Glossary
Attachment 5: Engagement Record
Attachment 6: Contributing Authors and Work Group Members List
Volume II: Attachment 7

Attachment 7: Plan Formulation Report
Volume III: Attachments 8 through 8E

Attachment 8: Technical Analysis Summary Report
Attachment 8A: Hydrology
Attachment 8B: Reservoir Analysis
Attachment 8C: Riverine Channel Evaluations
Attachment 8D: Estuary Channel Evaluations
Attachment 8E: Levee Performance Curves
Volume IV: Attachments 8F through 8L

Attachment 8F: Flood Damage Analysis
Attachment 8G: Life Risk Analysis
Attachment 8H: Regional Economic Analysis for the State
Systemwide Investment Approach
PAGE viii JUNE 2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Attachment 8I: Framework for Benefit Assessment

Attachment 8J: Cost Estimates
Attachment 8K: Climate Change Analysis
Attachment 8L: Groundwater Recharge Opportunities Analysis
Volume V: Attachments 9A through 9G

Attachment 9A: Regional Advance Mitigation Planning
Attachment 9B: Status and Trends of the Riparian and Riverine
Ecosystems of the Systemwide Planning Area
Attachment 9C: Fish Passage Assessment
Attachment 9D: Improving Vegetation Data
Attachment 9E: Existing Conservation Objectives from Other Plans
Attachment 9F: Floodplain Restoration Opportunity Analysis
Attachment 9G: Regional Permitting Options
JUNE 2012 PAGE ix

PAGE x JUNE 2012

SECTION 1.0 | RESPONDING TO THE NEED FOR IMPROVED
FLOOD MANAGEMENT IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY
1.0 RESPONDING TO THE NEED FOR

IMPROVED FLOOD MANAGEMENT IN
THE CENTRAL VALLEY
1.1 What is the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan?
The Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP) is a critical document to guide
Californias participation (and influence federal and local participation) in managing
flood risk along the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River systems. The CVFPP
proposes a systemwide investment approach for
sustainable, integrated flood management in areas
currently protected by facilities of the State Plan of WHY A FLOOD RISK REDUCTION PROGRAM IS
Flood Control (SPFC). The CVFPP will be updated NEEDED IN THE CENTRAL VALLEY
every five years, with each update providing support Existing level of flood protection among lowest for
for subsequent policy, program, and metropolitan areas in the Nation
project implementation.
State Plan of Flood Control urban levees
about half do not meet current engineering criteria
The State of California (State) conducted planning
and investigations for the 2012 CVFPP from 2009 State Plan of Flood Control nonurban levees about
through 2011, representing the most comprehensive 60 percent have relatively high potential for failure
flood evaluations for the Central Valley. Following Population at risk about 1 million in floodplains
the anticipated adoption of the CVFPP in 2012 by
Assets at risk about $70 billion
the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (Board),
preparation of regional- and State-level financing Lands within Federal Emergency Management Agency
plans will guide investments in the range of $14 100-year (1% annual chance of occurrence) floodplain
1.2 million acres
billion to $17 billion during the next 20 to 25 years.
These financing plans are critical to CVFPP imple- Cumulative flood damages in 1983, 1986, 1995, and 1997
mentation, given the uncertainty in State, federal, well in excess of $3 billion (2011 cost level)
and local agency budgets and cost-sharing capabili- Flood in 1997:
ties. Figure 1-1 shows the progression of flood plan-
All Central Valley counties declared disaster areas
ning, financial planning, and project implementation Over 120,000 people evacuated
leading to the 2017 update of the CVFPP Over 9,000 homes destroyed
and beyond. Many businesses flooded
Thousands of acres of agricultural land flooded
Implementation of some elements included in the Over $1 billion (2011 price level) in direct
CVFPP began in January 2007 when bond funding flood damages
provided a down payment towards SPFC improve- Potential economic losses disruption in local, regional,
ments outlined in the CVFPP. On-the-ground con- and State economies
struction has begun to solve some key levee prob-
Ecosystem riparian habitat and key species in crisis
lems, and management of the system has improved.
With adoption of the CVFPP, the pace of implemen- Operations and maintenance flood risk reductions
tation should significantly increase. actions and ecosystem needs not often in harmony
JUNE 2012 PAGE 11

Floodplain
O&M
ER
Central Valley Flood System Program

Flood Protection Financing Plan Implementation
Plan
Systemwide / Regional
Systemwide Statewide and Site-Specific
Management Financing Projects
Figure 1-1. Rollout of Future Programs
During the next five years (2012 to 2017), flood managers will continue to build
infrastructure improvements that upgrade levees in high risk urban areas and will
begin other flood management improvements. Subsequent infrastructure improve-
ments will be based on results of detailed feasibility studies that consider improve-
ments for high risk urban areas, small communities, rural-agricultural areas, and
more complicated systemwide facilities, such as bypass expansions. Integral to these
improvements will be the inclusion of environmental considerations in all phases of
flood management planning and implementation.
1.2 Setting and Historical Context

Floods have had devastating effects on life and property in the Central Valley and on
the economic prosperity of the State of California. The most recent significant floods
in the Central Valley, which occurred in 1986 and 1997, together caused over $1 bil-
lion in damage1 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], 1997). Despite the pro-
tection provided by the current flood management system, residual flood risk in the
Central Valley remains among the highest in the country. Currently, even small flood
events with a 5 % annual chance of exceedence can stress parts of the flood system.
The Central Valley of California is a broad, gently sloping valley that drains into
the largest estuary on the West Coast, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta).
Lower-lying lands along the valleys two major rivers, the Sacramento River and the
San Joaquin River, were floodplains that were regularly inundated for long periods
during large, seasonal flood events before reclamation. The valley is bounded on
the west by the Coast Range, on the north by the Cascade Range, and on the east by
the Sierra Nevada Range. The most devastating floods are caused by warm Pacific
storms that sweep in from the west or southwest, picking up moisture over thou-
sands of miles of ocean, causing torrential rains when intercepted by the mountains
surrounding the Central Valley.
1 Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, California Post-Flood Assessment (USACE, 1999).
PAGE 12 JUNE 2012

Catastrophic floods in the Central Valley have

been documented since the mid-1800s. Hydrau-
lic mining in the Sierra Nevada Mountains in the
late 1800s sent large amounts of sediment down-
stream, choking the channels of rivers such as the
Yuba River, Feather River, and American River
and increasing flooding by raising channel beds
above their natural levels and surrounding lands.
In response to frequent flood events and the chal-

lenges posed by the huge and recurring sediment
loads created by hydraulic mining, the current
flood management system has evolved through
an incremental learning and construction process
(Figure 1-2). SPFC facilities have been construct- 1862 Flooding in Sacramento
ed through the individual and combined efforts of local, State, and federal agencies.
The facilities were constructed with materials at hand over many decades, to evolv-
ing design standards and construction techniques. As a result, these facilities provide
varying levels of protection, depending on when and how they were constructed
and upgraded. Construction of these facilities has also resulted in loss of floodplain
habitats and marshes.
The process was originally driven by the need to defend the developing valley floor
against periodic floods while maintaining navigable channels for commerce. Over
time, with development of the railroads in the late 1800s and early 1900s, and the
highway system since then, river navigation has become less economically im-
portant. However, the importance of Central Valley rivers and floodplains as con-
duits for municipal, industrial, and agricultural water supply, fisheries and wildlife
habitat, and recreation has increased as a result of population growth and environ-
mental degradation in the State.
The Central Valley flood management system includes levees along the major rivers
and streams of the valley floor and around the islands of the Delta, a major bypass
system for the Sacramento River and its tributar-
ies, several bypass segments along the San Joa-
quin River, and reservoirs on almost all major
rivers and streams draining to the Central Valley.
Levee construction and improvement began in

about 1850 and continues to this day. The Sacra-
mento River bypass system was federally autho-
rized in 1917. It includes a system of flood relief
structures and weirs that release Sacramento River
flows into the bypass system when flows exceed
downstream channel capacity at five locations,
from the latitude of Chico to Sacramento (see
Section 1.2.1). At the latitude of Sacramento,
the Yolo Bypass carries 80 percent or more of
floodflows southward to the Delta. Construction of Yolo Bypass Levee
JUNE 2012 PAGE 13

Significant Flood Management Events

1849 California Gold Rush
1850 Federal Arkansas Act giving
away California Swamplands
1850 California Statehood
1861 State Flood Control Act
Reclamation District Act
1883 Federal Anti-Debris Act ends 1849 Sutters
1849 Sutters Mill
Mill
hydraulic mining
1911 State Reclamation Board created
1933 Central Valley Project authorized 1862
1862Flood
FloodininSacramento
Sacramento
2003 Paterno Decision

2005 DWR Flood Warning White Paper
2006 Propositions 1E and 84 passed
2007 Flood Management Reform Legislation
Sacramento River Basin

1955 Folsom Dam built
1850 First levee built in Sacramento 1955 Folsom Dam built
1917 Sacramento River Flood

Control Project authorized
1997
1997Flood
FloodininCentral
CentralValley
Valley
1944 Shasta Dam was built
1955 Folsom Dam was built
1967 Oroville Dam was built
1969 New Bullards Bar Dam was built
San Joaquin River Basin

1944 Lower San Joaquin River and 1949Friant
1949 FriantDam
Dambuilt
built
Tributaries Project
1949 Friant Dam completed
1955 Bypasses and levees authorized
on San Joaquin River above 1907 Flood in Stockton
Merced River
1963 Camanche Dam was built 1907 Flood in Stockton
1964 New Hogan Dam was built
1967 New Exchequer Dam was built
1978 New Melones Dam built
1971 New Don Pedro Dam was built
1978 New Melones Dam was built
1978 New Melones Dam built
1993 Redbank/Fancher Creeks Project
Figure 1-2. Chronology of Flood Management-Related Actions in Central Valley
PAGE 14 JUNE 2012

Nearly 150 reservoirs have been constructed on streams draining to the Central
Valley since 1850 by a variety of public agencies, including utilities, water districts,
the USACE, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Recla-
mation), and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Of these, ten
major multipurpose reservoirs play a critically important role in moderating Central
Valley flood inflows2:
Shasta Lake on the Sacramento River
Lake Oroville on the Feather River
New Bullards Bar Reservoir on the Yuba River
Folsom Dam on the American River
Camanche Reservoir on the Mokelumne River
New Hogan Reservoir on the Calaveras River
New Melones Reservoir on the Stanislaus River
New Don Pedro Reservoir on the Tuolumne River
Lake McClure on the Merced River
Millerton Lake on the San Joaquin River
These reservoirs are operated in accordance with flood control rules established by
USACE. In general, the flood control rules require that during the flood season, a
portion of the storage space in the lake is reserved for capturing floodflow peaks and
releasing them gradually so that downstream channel capacity is not overwhelmed.
In some reservoirs, the required flood control space is adjusted in proportion to the
seasonal precipitation, soil moisture, and snowpack. This space is drained as quickly
as feasible after each flood peak to be ready for the next floodflow peak. The rules
are tuned to the particular runoff characteristics of each river basin.
During major flood events, there is close coordination between State, federal, and
local agencies to forecast weather and runoff conditions, manage and coordinate
flood releases from the reservoir system, patrol and floodfight along the levee and
bypass system, and operate the weirs, drainage pumps, and other flood control struc-
tures. These activities are important in preparing for and coordinating responses to
damaging flood events. The effort required varies significantly from basin to basin
due to differences in river flows, shown in Figure 1-3. The figure displays historical
maximum three-day floodflows in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins.
Instead of using instantaneous peak flows, maximum three-day flows were selected
to provide more consistent comparisons of the highest flood flows each year due to
the large basin size and reservoir regulation of floods.
2 Note: The rivers draining into the Tulare Lake Basin, including the Kings River, Kaweah River,
Tule River, and Kern River, are not considered to be part of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River
System, but Kings River drains northward during very wet years, such as 1968 1969, 1982
1983 and 2005 2006.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 15

USACE has played a key role in plan formulation, design, construction, inspection,
and floodfighting in the Central Valley since the late 1800s. USACE is responsible
for the maintenance of navigation, management of hydraulic mining debris, and the
construction and operation of many of the large multipurpose reservoirs that moder-
ate flows into the Central Valley. USACE continues to be responsible for implement-
ing most federally authorized flood control projects, in partnership with State and
local agencies.
Sacramento River at Bend Bridge Maximum 3-Day Flow 19302007

300
250
1,000 cfs
200
150
100
50
0
1930
1934
1938
1942
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
Water Year
American River at Fair Oaks Maximum 3-Day Flow 19302008

200
150
1,000 cfs
100
50
0
1930
1934
1938
1942
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
Water Year
Sacramento River at I Street/Yolo Bypass Maximum 3-Day Flow 19302007

800
600
1,000 cfs
400
200
0
1930
1934
1938
1942
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
Water Year
San Joaquin River at Newman Maximum 3-Day Flow 19302007

100
80
1,000 cfs
60
40
20
0
1930
1934
1938
1942
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
Water Year
San Joaquin River at Vernalis Maximum 3-Day Flow 19302007

250
200
1,000 cfs
150
100
50
0
1930
1934
1938
1942
1946
1950
1954
1958
1962
1966
1970
1974
1978
1982
1986
1990
1994
1998
2002
2006
Water Year
Major Flood
Key: cfs = cubic feet per second
Figure 1-3. Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Hydrographs
PAGE 16 JUNE 2012

1.2.1 Definition of State Plan of Flood Control

The SPFC represents a portion of the Central Valley flood management system for
which the State has special responsibilities, as defined in the California Water Code
(Figure 1-4, Figure 1-5, and Table 1-1). It is defined as follows:
the state and federal flood control works, lands, programs,

plans, policies, conditions, and mode of maintenance and
operations of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project
described in Section 8350, and of flood control projects in the
Sacramento River and San Joaquin River watersheds autho-
rized pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 12648)
of Chapter 2 of Part 6 of Division 6 for which the board or
the department has provided the assurances of nonfederal co-
operation to the United States, and those facilities identified
in Section 8361. California Water Code Section 9110 (f)
The State Plan of Flood Control Descriptive Document (DWR, 2010) provides
a detailed inventory and description of the levees, weirs, bypass channels, pumps,
dams, and other structures included in the SPFC.
1.3 Assets Protected by

State Plan of Flood Control
Over the last century, the Central Valley has experienced intensive development
to meet the needs of a growing population. A complex water supply and flood risk
management system supports and protects a vibrant agricultural economy, several
cities, and numerous small communities. The SPFC protects a population of over
one million people, major freeways, railroads, airports, water supply systems, utili-
ties, and other infrastructure of statewide importance, including $69 billion in assets
(includes structural and content value and estimated annual crop production values)
(Figure 1-6). Many of the more than 500 species of native plants and wildlife found
in the Central Valley rely to some extent on habitat existing within the SPFC.
1.4 Current Problems and Future Trends

Facing State Plan of Flood Control
Much of the Central Valley levee system was 600
built over many years using the sands, silts,
( Y E A R S )
clays, and soils, including organic soils that

500
were conveniently available, often poorly

P R O T E C T I O N
400
compacted over permeable foundations. The 300
system was designed to contain the record 200
floods of the early twentieth century with the

O F
100
L E V E L
aim of fostering development of an agricultur- 85
ally oriented economy and promoting public Sacramento New Orleans Tacoma St. Louis Hartford
safety. The subsequent construction of a series Level of Flood Protection for Selected Major River
of multipurpose reservoirs with substantial Cities in the United States
JUNE 2012 PAGE 17

Key: cfs = cubic feet per second SPFC = State Plan of Flood Control USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Figure 1-4. State Plan of Flood Control Facilities, Sacramento River Basin
PAGE 18 JUNE 2012

Key: SPFC = State Plan of Flood Control USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Figure 1-5. State Plan of Flood Control Facilities, San Joaquin River Basin
JUNE 2012 PAGE 19

Table 1-1. Overview of State Plan of Flood Control
FEATURE AND DESCRIPTION AS OF 2010
Project Works
Approximately 1,600 miles of levees
Two flood relief structures and one natural overflow area spilling floodwaters from the Sacramento River into the
Butte Basin
Four fixed weirs (Moulton, Colusa, Tisdale, Fremont) and one operable weir (Sacramento) spilling floodwaters
from the Sacramento River into the Butte Basin, Sutter Bypass, and Yolo Bypass
Four dams
Five control structures directing flow in bypass channels along the San Joaquin River
Seven major pumping plants
Channels
Bypasses and sediment basins
Environmental mitigation areas
Associated facilities, such as bank protection, stream gages, and drainage facilities
Lands
Fee title, easements, and land use agreements
Approximately 18,000 parcels
Operations and Maintenance
Two standard operations and maintenance manuals
118 unit-specific operations and maintenance manuals
Maintenance by State and local maintaining agencies
Conditions
Assurances of Cooperation (as specified in Memorandums of Agreement, the California Water Code, and
agreements)
Flood Control Regulations, Section 208.10, 33 Code of Federal Regulations
Requirements of standard and unit-specific operations and maintenance manuals
Design profiles (e.g., 1955 and 1957)
Programs and Plans
Historical documents and processes
As-constructed drawings
Oversight and management
Ongoing programs and plans
flood control capability significantly augmented the capacity of the flood manage-
ment system and contributed greatly to the States economic development and public
safety objectives. These reservoirs constituted the principal response to the mid-
century recognition that extreme floods that were much larger than those that guided
design of the levee system were reasonably foreseeable.
The latter half of the twentieth century has been marked by a growing awareness of
the effects of the levee system and the multipurpose reservoirs on the environmen-
tal health of the Central Valleys rivers and streams and their associated seasonal
wetland and riparian habitats. The reduction of these habitats to accommodate the
levee system and the reservoirs has impacted the populations of salmon, steelhead,
sturgeon, Swainsons hawks, bank swallows, giant garter snakes, and many other
wildlife species in the Central Valley. As a result, preservation and enhancement
of the valleys remaining wetland and riparian habitat has become an increasingly
important consideration in the design, construction, operations, and maintenance of
the flood management system.
PAGE 110 JUNE 2012

Figure 1-6. Geographic Distribution of Assets and Population Protected by State Plan of Flood Control Facilities
JUNE 2012 PAGE 111

Although the SPFC has prevented billions of dollars in flood damages since its
construction, a better understanding of the risk assessment and engineering standards
has made it clear that some SFPC facilities face an unacceptably high chance of
failure. This, combined with continued urbanization in the floodplains, has increased
the estimated level of flood risk. While the chance and frequency of flooding have
decreased since construction of SPFC facilities and other multipurpose reservoirs,
the damages that would occur if a levee were to fail in one of the urban areas are
much greater, resulting in a net long-term increase in cumulative damages if no
action is taken to improve the flood management system and limit further develop-
ment in these areas.
The overall physical condition of SPFC levees is

UNDERSTANDING FLOOD RISK summarized in Figure 1-7. To simplify representa-
tion of levee conditions, the figure includes Urban
As used in this report, flood risk is the product of the Levee Evaluations and Non-Urban Levee Evalua-
chance of flooding multiplied by the consequences. tions results that are not directly comparable because
Thus, flood risk increases with storm frequency and different evaluation methodologies were used for
severity, as well as with floodplain development. The each project. The figure is intended to show broadly
potential for flooding is often underrated and misun- which levee reaches are of relatively higher, me-
derstood. For this reason, not enough focus is placed dium, and lower concern, based on physical condi-
on flood preparedness. An ongoing challenge is to fully tions of the levees. Levees shown as purple (higher
inform floodplain residents and businesses of the concern) on the map generally display more perfor-
importance of understanding and preparing for mance problems than those shown in green (lower
flooding, especially in levee-protected areas. concern). Results do not reflect economic or life
safety consequences of flooding, which are key fac-
tors in planning system repairs and improvements.
Including the overall condition of SPFC levees shown in Figure 1-7, an overview of
the condition of urban levees, nonurban levees, channels, and flood control structures
of the SPFC is as follows:
Approximately half of about 300 miles of SPFC urban levees evaluated do
not meet current engineering design criteria3 at the design water
surface elevation.
Approximately 60 percent of about 1,230 miles of SPFC nonurban levees
evaluated have a high potential for failure at the assessment water surface
elevation4. Nonurban levees were evaluated based on systematic, consistent,
repeatable analyses that correlated geotechnical data with levee performance
history, not relative to any current design criteria5.
3 The design criteria used were based on the Design and Construction of Levees Engineering
Manual 1110-2-1913 (USACE, 2000) and Interim Levee Design Criteria for Urban and
Urbanizing Areas in the Sacramento Valley, Version 4 (DWR, 2010).
4 Where available, 1955/57 design water surface elevations were used as the assessment water
surface elevations. In the absence of 1955/57 design water surface elevations, the assessment
water surface elevations were based on freeboard requirements for each levee segment (i.e.,
generally 3 feet below the levee crest).
5 This approach was selected because the extent of the Non-Urban Levee Evaluations Project is
significantly greater than that of the Urban Levee Evaluations Project, making it difficult to
conduct the same level of field explorations and geotechnical data collection performed for
Urban Levee Evaluations levees.
PAGE 112 JUNE 2012
Key: SPFC = State Plan of Flood Control
Figure 1-7. Summary of Physical Levee Conditions Based on Levee Evaluations Program Results
JUNE 2012 PAGE 113

Approximately half of the 1,016 miles of channels evaluated in the SPFC

have a potentially inadequate capacity to convey design flows, and require
additional evaluation to confirm conditions.
None of the 32 hydraulic structures or 11 pumping plants inspected by DWR
for the SPFC were rated Unacceptable during the 2009 inspections; how-
ever, many are approaching the end of their design life. Of the 10 SPFC
bridges inspected by DWR in 2009, 2 were in need of repairs.
The regional and system improvements considered

MANAGING FLOODS VERSUS in the CVFPP are intended to address a number of
MANAGING FLOOD RISK potential physical threats to the existing flood man-
agement system. These threats are described in the
Managing floods means building and operating facili-
Flood Control System Status Report (DWR, 2011).
ties such as dams, weirs, levees, and pump stations to
For levees in the system, threats include problems
safely store and convey flood flows within designated
associated with geometry, seepage, structural insta-
channels to reduce the chance of flooding. Such bility, erosion, settlement, penetrations, vegetation,
improvements can greatly reduce, but not entirely rodent damage, and encroachments. For channels of
eliminate, the flood risk. Often, floodplains are subse- the system, threats include inadequacies in overall
quently developed because of the perception that the conveyance capacity. For necessary flood manage-
chance of flooding has been eliminated. As a result, ment structures such as weirs, pumping plants, and
the overall flood risk can (paradoxically) increase fol- bridges, threats primarily include inadequate hy-
lowing construction of flood control facilities. draulic capacities. The Board continues to address
Flood risk is the combined effect of the chance of encroachments on a site-by-site basis.
flooding and the property that would be damaged if
flooded. Managing flood risk means either reducing The physical and cultural landscape of the Central
the chance of flooding or the population and property Valley has changed dramatically since the flood
management system was initially constructed.
exposed to flooding, or doing a combination of both.
Population growth and economic development
Thus, managing flood risk can include flood control
behind levees have increased flood risk. In many
facilities, as well as limiting floodplain development,
areas, development has outpaced the ability of flood
elevating structures above flood elevations, creating
managers to implement structural and nonstructural
natural flood storage and groundwater recharge ar-
solutions needed to control flood damages. Among
eas, and using flood risk notification, flood insurance, floodplain residents, flood risk is often poorly
and flood preparedness. understood. Flood risk management tools such as
flood insurance and disaster preparedness are often
underused.
Development behind levees is often incompatible with periodic flooding, to the det-
riment of public safety and floodplain ecosystems, unless special measures, such as
elevating or floodproofing buildings, are implemented to limit damages.
Riverine habitats and ecosystem functions have been degraded over time through
changes in land use, construction of dams and levees, water pollution, and other
causes. The geographic extent, quality, and connectivity of native habitats along
Central Valley rivers have all declined. Today, less than 4 percent of the historical
riparian forests that lined valley streams remain, with a significant portion of this
forest growing on, or close to, levees of the SPFC.
PAGE 114 JUNE 2012

The historical practice of constructing SPFC levees close to the river channels to
induce sediment scour has, in many cases, interfered with the natural stream mean-
dering process. Where meandering channels begin to erode SPFC levee slopes, ero-
sion protection is required to protect the integrity of the system. The result has been
the placement of several hundred miles of rock revet-
ment protecting about 30 percent of SPFC stream
banks and waterside levee slopes. Stream banks
require costly, ongoing maintenance and repairs. The
Sacramento River Bank Protection Project has pro-
vided the authority and mechanism for placing the
majority of rock revetment along SPFC facilities.
Faced with limited funding, increasing regulatory

constraints, and changing expectations for the mul-
tiple uses of the flood management system, it is
increasingly difficult for State and local agencies to
maintain levees and channels. This has jeopardized
eligibility for federal levee rehabilitation funds under
Public Law 84-99, administered by USACE, and
levee accreditation under the Federal Emergency
Management Agencys (FEMA) National Flood
Insurance Program. Typical Rock Revetment Along Sacramento River
A recent change in the USACE approach towards woody levee vegetation also poses
new challenges for those who operate and maintain the existing system of levees.
Since the levee system failures along the Gulf Coast caused by Hurricane Katrina in
2005, USACE has taken the position that no woody vegetation should be tolerated
on or near federal project levees and, through a series of administrative actions, has
moved to promulgate and enforce this approach. For the California Central Valley,
woody vegetation is of great ecological and aesthetic value and would be extremely
costly to remove. Consequently, the State, local maintaining agencies, and environ-
mental groups have been working with USACE to encourage development of a flex-
ible levee vegetation management approach that would achieve public safety goals
without sacrificing environmental quality and misallocating scarce public funds.
(This issue is discussed in greater detail in Section 3 with regard to retention of Pub-
lic Law 84-99 Disaster Recovery eligibility, in Section 4 with regard to management
vegetation on the levees, and at length in Attachment 2 Conservation Framework).
Operations and maintenance and repairs of the flood management system are dif-
ficult to execute and often deferred for many reasons. These include original system
designs that do not meet existing engineering standards, inadequate funding, en-
croachments, inconsistent levee maintenance practices among maintaining agen-
cies, and challenges in complying with a variety of State and federal environmental
permitting and mitigation requirements.
Responsibilities for flood management and land use decisions in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Valley are dispersed among many agencies, and flood risk is often poorly
understood among the floodplain residents. Land use decisions, such as those involv-
JUNE 2012 PAGE 115

ing development in floodplains, are typically made at the

100-Year Flood is a shorthand expression
local level by counties and cities. Local jurisdictions often
for a flood that has a 1 in 100 chance of being
have economic incentives to support and encourage such
exceeded in any given year. This may also be development. On the other hand, when levees fail, resulting
expressed as the 1% annual chance of in flood damages and loss of life, the costs associated with
exceedence flood, or 1% annual chance floodfighting, rescue, recovery, and rehabilitation are shared
flood for short. Similarly, a 200-year flood has by local, State, and federal agencies.
a 1 in 200 (or 0.5%) chance of being exceeded
in any given year. Overlapping jurisdictions across various federal and State
agencies involved in flood management can lead to incon-
sistent policies and regulations. Coordinating activities within this fragmented juris-
dictional landscape can be challenging, particularly for local entities.
Population increase and distribution will likely drive changes in land use patterns,
potentially increasing the population at risk from flooding and possibly further
reducing existing agricultural land and wildlife habitat. Continued urban develop-
ment within major floodplains will also make future changes to the footprint of the
flood management system progressively more costly, and increase consequences and
risks (life safety and damages) when the flood management system is overwhelmed.
Two factors are likely to slow this process in the future. First, FEMAs flood risk
map digitizing and risk reassessment efforts will result in remapping of much of the
SPFC-protected areas with less than 100-year (1% annual chance) flood protection.
As a result, development in these areas will be more expensive, difficult to insure,
and subject to flood-proofing or elevation requirements. The
passage of Senate Bill 56 has set an even higher threshold
for urban areas by requiring that they ultimately be provided
with at least 200-year (0.5% annual chance) flood protection
as a condition for further development.
Climate change will lead to a greater fraction of seasonal

precipitation occurring as rain rather than snow and sea
levels will rise. These trends appear to be already established
and, if they continue as expected, they will put increasing
stress on Californias flood management system. Floodplain
risk assessments and development constraints will likely be
adjusted accordingly. For example, the 100-year and 200-
Climate change is expected to reduce snowpack year (1% and 0.5% annual chance) flood events, calculated
coverage in the Sierra based on historical flood events may become larger for many
watersheds, with long-term effects on National Flood Insur-
ance Program map ratings, flood insurance costs, floodplain development, and the
economic viability of floodplain communities. In addition, as the moderating effects
of snowpack on runoff decrease, there will be a need for more water supply stor-
age, putting greater pressure on Californias multipurpose flood control reservoirs.
Increased temperatures and altered runoff patterns also directly impact the health of
Californias natural ecosystems and habitats.
6 2007 Senate Bill No. 5, Machado. Flood management.
PAGE 116 JUNE 2012

In some portions of the Central Valley, levees are subsiding because of several
causes, including groundwater extraction, natural gas extraction, and the gradual
compression or oxidation of weak, organic, or clay foundation soils. Project levees
in the Delta, in the Knights Landing area of Yolo County, and in other areas, have
subsided up to several feet over the past century. Such subsidence decreases the
flood-carrying capacity, and sometimes the structural integrity, of these levees.
Over the past 40 years, State and federal environmental laws and regulations have
been developed to reduce environmental impacts of human activities, such as those
related to endangered species, fisheries, wetlands, and water quality. While progress
has been made in achieving the goal of reducing environmental impacts of human
activities, more can be achieved in terms of reducing impacts, and restoring some of
what has been lost. One challenge is that these laws and regulations have added to
the complexity, cost, and time required to plan, design, construct, operate, and repair
portions of the flood management system. Future flood management practices will
need to continue to adapt to current and new environmental regulations.
Collaboration between flood system managers and resource and regulatory agencies
will be critically important in developing approaches that support long-term inte-
grated management of the flood management system that serves public safety and
environmental needs. This type of collaboration, which is discussed below, has been
occurring. While not an exhaustive list, following are some of the challenges to ad-
dress that will improve the ability to manage the system for multiple benefits:
Addressing the needs of special-status species while also providing for
the needs of multiple species that may use the habitat in the flood manage-
ment system.
Existing laws set relatively short time limits for some environmental permits
given that flood management systems need to be managed in perpetuity.
The process for developing management agreements for flood control
projects under the multitude of federal and State environmental laws can be
costly and complex and, in some cases, has been the responsibility of the
project proponent, even when the actions provide multiple benefits. Increased
partnering and leveraging of multiple funding sources will expand the oppor-
tunities for implementing multi-benefit projects.
Work windows for species protection can challenge flood system manag-
ers in completing required annual maintenance. If habitat is improved and
increased in and near the flood system, an intended outcome is increases in
population sizes and, potentially, populations of new species using restored
areas, which could increase limitations on maintainers and thereby increase
flood risks. Refining work windows that meet the needs for species protec-
tion and flood activities, both of which can be very constrained by seasonal
events and conditions, will support integrated management of the
flood system.
Improving habitat in ways that reduce, or at least do not substantially in-
crease, needs for maintenance of flood facilities will be important. Additional
long-term funding may be needed where such improvements substantially
increase maintenance needs.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 117

Regulatory coverage under the federal Endangered Species Act and the
California Endangered Species Act will be needed for a broad range of flood
system management activities. Flood management, resource, and regulatory
agencies will need to continue to work together to apply the most appropri-
ate mechanisms for given areas and types of work from the variety of tools
available (e.g., Habitat Conservation Plans, Incidental Take authorizations,
Safe Harbor Agreements).
Effective interagency collaboration to address some of the issues noted above, and
others, has been occurring. One example of this is the Interagency Flood Manage-
ment Collaborative Program. Started in 2005 at the request of DWR and including
local, State, and federal flood control, regulatory, and resource agencies, this
program was instrumental in accelerating the 29 critical Central Valley levee repairs
ordered by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in early 2006. This program also
helped create and is supporting development of the Small Erosion Repair Program
and the Corridor Management Strategy (both discussed in more detail in Attach-
ment 2 Conservation Framework), and continually provides technical support and
assistance to the Division of Flood Management in the programs and projects it
implements. The activities and successes reflect the programs underlying commit-
ment that effective flood system management and healthy ecosystems can both be
supported in the ongoing effort to protect public safety.
Land ownership underlying the facilities of the SPFC is a patchwork of private and
public parcels. A variety of easements cover many private parcels and these ease-
ments have been established for a variety of different and often site-specific
purposes. The types and terms of these easements relate to, for example, periodic
flooding, conservation of agricultural land, and habitat restoration. This patchwork
of land ownership and easement terms both constrains and complicates the potential
for providing flood or environmental improvements over areas greater than indi-
vidual parcels.
Impacts of modifications to facilities and environmental restoration on adjacent

properties must also be carefully considered and mitigated, where feasible. For
example, where wildlife habitat is proposed in proximity to existing agricultural
lands, the impacts of plowing, spraying, and harvesting of agricultural lands on
nearby wildlife habitat and, conversely, the impacts of protected species on agricul-
tural lands, must both be carefully addressed to successfully implement long-term
environmental enhancement projects.
There are several important connections between flood management and water
quality. Most importantly, floods are capable of mobilizing enormous sediment loads
and their contaminants, carrying them downstream, and then sorting and redeposit-
ing them. Many of the streams of the Sierra and the Coast Range have large amounts
of mercury, mainly due to its use in capturing gold from sluice boxes during the
Gold Rush, and also due to erosion from natural deposits. Mercury poses major ob-
stacles to sediment management and ecosystem restoration where it occurs in large
concentrations, such as in Cache Creek and the Cache Creek Settling Basin.
PAGE 118 JUNE 2012

When levees fail, the inundation of homes, farms, businesses, and industries often
results in the release and dispersion of highly toxic chemicals, which can have far
reaching health and economic effects. All of these water quality concerns will
continue to affect flood management programs by requiring that contaminants and
toxics be addressed in the planning, design, construction, and maintenance phases of
flood management projects, most likely intensifying in the future.
Major capital improvement and routine maintenance of the flood management

system are primarily dependent on public funding generated by State, federal, and
local sources. Flood risk management programs must compete with numerous other
pressing funding needs such as education, transportation, health, and welfare. Major
infusions of funding for flood risk management have historically followed major
floods, when public attention is focused on the catastrophic damages they cause. For
example, Propositions 1E and 847, with a combined bond funding capability of $4.9
billion, were approved by California voters little more than a year after Hurricane
Katrina flooded and destroyed much of New Orleans, killing over 1,200 people.
However, flood risk reduction programs and infrastructure need steady, long-term
funding to achieve and sustain the requisite level of protection. Governments at all
levels struggling with heavy debt burdens, recession-damped revenue projections,
and rising construction costs all add uncertainty for fully funding the flood risk
management programs and projects described in this report.
1.4.1 Future of State Plan of Flood Control Without

Comprehensive Action
In the absence of the CVFPP, current trends would likely continue. Among the most
notable trends are the following:
FEMAs ongoing flood risk mapping program, conducted in coordination

with State and local communities, will remap the floodplains protected by the
SPFC with less than 100-year (1% annual chance) flood protection. This will
impose significant long-term burdens on farms, homeowners, and businesses
in these areas, including higher flood insurance premiums and limitations on
repairing, reconstructing, and expanding structures.
The existing partnership among the federal government, the State, and local
entities for implementing flood risk reduction projects will continue. Current
federal regulations strongly favor flood management projects in urban areas.
Primarily in order to demonstrate a federal interest, flood damage reduction
benefits of a project must exceed project costs. In other words, the benefit-
to-cost ratio must be greater than one. To be recommended for funding in the
Presidents budget, a more robust benefit-to-cost ratio is generally required.
Although each of these projects is implemented taking into consideration its
effects on the system as a whole, this process is by its very nature a piece-
meal approach. These regulations also do not take into account the long-term
7 Proposition 1E = Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006; Proposition 84 = Safe
Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 119

benefit of integrating environmental restoration projects, thus undervaluing

the importance of rural projects. The historical federal/State/local partnership
has created a dichotomous system in which urban areas have a much higher
level of protection than rural-agricultural areas and receive the majority of
available funding. Since the passage of Propositions 1E and 84, the State
has taken a stronger leadership role in the project delivery process, including
project formulation, design, and advancing of funds to cover much of what
traditionally has been the federal cost share, with the hope of obtaining credit
against future State cost-sharing obligations.
System maintenance will continue to be challenged by the need to complete
annual maintenance activities such as mowing grass, trimming trees and
brush, filling burrows, clearing sediment, and restoring patrol roads while at
the same time minimizing impacts on migrating fish, nesting birds, and hi-
bernating snakes. The result is a combination of rapidly rising costs, shorten-
ing maintenance windows, high mitigation costs, and uncertainty.
Without improved approaches to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of
the environmental regulatory process, the complexity of meeting the variety
of environmental regulations may continue to result in project delays and
costs and inadequate environmental improvements. Continued collaboration
at local, State, and federal levels will be important
in navigating regulatory complexities and crafting
SOME IMPORTANT TERMS USED IN THE approaches that will support the shift to long-term
CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION PLAN integrated management of the system that serves
both public safety and environmental needs.
Integrated Flood Management. This is an approach for
addressing flood risk that recognizes the interconnection 1.5 States Interest in
of flood management actions within broader water Integrated Flood
resources management and land use planning; the value
of coordinating across geographic and agency bound- Management
aries; the need to evaluate opportunities and potential The CVFPP is drafted with careful consideration
impacts from a system perspective; and the importance of of the well-represented interests of involved local,
environmental stewardship and sustainability. State, and federal agencies, and special interest,
nongovernmental organizations. The CVFPP also
Sustainable. A project is considered sustainable when
takes into consideration the interests of the State
it is socially, environmentally, and financially feasible for as a whole, which are typically not represented by
an enduring period. For the CVFPP, a sustainable proj- any special interest group, in promoting the wise
ect will also have flexibility to adapt to potential future stewardship of public funds and natural resources.
changes such as climate change.
The State has a fundamental interest in promot-
Systemwide. Evaluations on a systemwide basis con-
ing the health and safety of its people, robust
sider how all the parts of the river basin and flood protec-
and sustainable economic growth, and a healthy
tion facilities interrelate in the movement of floodflows
ecosystem.
from rim reservoirs through the Delta. In other words, the
evaluations consider the workings of the entire system Specific to flood management, the State has a
rather than more traditional approaches that may only responsibility for, and primary interest in, build-
evaluate short reaches of levee along a river. ing and maintaining flood management facilities
PAGE 120 JUNE 2012

along the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their tributaries to preserve the
welfare of the residents and landowners within reclaimed overflow basins in the
Central Valley (California Water Code Sections 8532 8533). This responsibility
is inextricably linked to the States obligation to comply with environmental laws,
policies, and directives. As the agency primarily charged with this dual responsibil-
ity, DWR has played a leadership role in developing environmentally sound project
designs and maintenance practices. Therefore, environmental enhancements are fully
integrated into formulation of the flood management approaches presented in
the CVFPP.
The State is also responsible for responding to emergencies and public threats; thus,
it is in the States interest to invest funds proactively to avoid and mitigate for known
risks to reduce costly emergency response and recovery.
1.6 Formulation of 2012 Central Valley Flood

Protection Plan
The 2012 CVFPP is built on the foundation of Central Valley flood risk management
efforts dating back to 1850, as documented in the previous sections. In 2006, DWR
consolidated and coordinated its various flood risk management programs under
the FloodSAFE California (FloodSAFE) initiative, which incorporates emergency
preparedness, flood operations, flood risk reduction and ecosystem restoration proj-
ects, flood project maintenance, and comprehensive, systemwide
assessment and planning to deliver improved flood protection as CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD
quickly and efficiently as possible.
PROTECTION ACT OF 2008
This long-term planning document will address the flood man- California Water Code Section 9603 (a)
agement challenges discussed in the previous section as part of a The Central Valley Flood Protection
sustainable, integrated flood management approach. The CVFPP Plan shall be a descriptive document,
is a descriptive document. It is not a systemwide feasibility study
and neither the plan nor anything in
of sufficient detail to support project-specific actions such as
this part shall be construed to expand
authorizing legislation, design, and construction. It is intended
the liability of the state for the opera-
to provide a foundation for prioritizing Central Valley flood risk
tion or maintenance of any flood man-
reduction and ecosystem restoration investments, including feasi-
agement facility beyond the scope of
bility studies on appropriate scales from valleywide to project-
specific. the State Plan of Flood Control, except
as specifically determined by the board
The CVFPP was prepared in coordination with local flood man- pursuant to Section 9611. Neither the
agement agencies, the Board, USACE, FEMA, and Reclamation. development nor the adoption of the
It is supported by data, analyses, and findings from related Flood- Central Valley Flood Protection Plan
SAFE efforts. These include the State Plan of Flood shall be construed to constitute any
Control Descriptive Document, the Flood Control System Status commitment by the state to provide, to
Report, and the CVFPP Final Program Environmental Impact continue to provide, or to maintain at,
Report, being prepared in parallel with the CVFPP and document- or to increase flood protection to, any
ed in interim products and reference documents (Figure 1-8). particular level.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 121

CENTRAL VALLEY
CONTRIBUTING DOCUMENTS FLOOD PROTECTION
PLAN
SPFC Flood Control 2012

Descriptive System Status CVFPP
Document Report
What Is the SPFC? How Is the SPFC Performing? How to Improve SPFC Performance
Key: CVFPP = Central Valley Flood Protection Plan SPFC = State Plan of Flood Control
Figure 1-8. Contributing Documents
Collectively, this body of work fulfills the intent and requirements of the Central
Valley Flood Protection Act of 2008, embedded in Senate Bill 5 and codified in
Sections 9600 through 9625 of the California Water Code. Detailed specifications
for the plan formulation process and its contents are provided for reference in
Attachment 1 Legislative Reference.
In accordance with the requirements of the act, the Board is expected to adopt the
CVFPP on or about July 1, 2012. The CVFPP will subsequently be updated every
five years by DWR and submitted to the Board for adoption.
The 2012 CVFPP focuses on improving integrated flood management and flood risk
reduction for areas protected by facilities of the SPFC (Figure 1-9). While the
CVFPP focuses on the areas protected by SPFC facilities, the flood emergency
response and operations and management of facilities in tributary watersheds that
influence SPFC-protected areas are also considered.
The CVFPP recognizes the connection of flood management actions to water re-
sources management, land use planning, environmental stewardship, and long-term
economic, environmental, and social sustainability. Integrated flood management
also recognizes the importance of evaluating opportunities and potential impacts
from a systemwide perspective, and the importance of coordinating across geo-
graphic and agency boundaries to treat entire hydrologic units.
The CVFPP provides an opportunity to mitigate some of the negative effects of

current trends while promoting wise investments of federal, State, and local funds,
as in the following examples:
The CVFPP will emphasize wise floodplain management, which, in concert

with FEMAs National Flood Insurance Program, will limit excessive flood-
plain development and promote continued sustainability of the current rural-
agricultural economy and small communities.
Investments in levees and other flood protection infrastructure will be con-
sidered on a systemwide basis. It is likely that urban communities, with the
greatest concentrations of population and damageable property, will continue
PAGE 122 JUNE 2012

Figure 1-9. Geographic Scope of Central Valley Flood Protection Plan
JUNE 2012 PAGE 123

to receive the greatest share of available federal and State funds. However,
the CVFPP gives careful attention to fixing known weaknesses in the rural-
agricultural levee system and also protecting small communities. Because
rural-agricultural areas are less developed, the State is interested in seeing
more nonstructural improvements, as these often can have lower long-term
annual operations and maintenance costs and greater system benefits. With
this in mind, the CVFPP provides a framework for a much broader benefit
analysis than the traditional approach, which relies almost entirely on the
benefit-to-cost ratio and net economic development indicators to guide in-
vestments. The CVFPP considers potential system improvements, such as
expanded bypasses and associated ecosystem enhancements, which are
beyond the sponsorship capabilities of even the most robust local agencies.
The CVFPP proposes to take an integrated system approach to maintenance
and ecosystem restoration. In practice, this means an approach that promotes
implementation of a future flood management system footprint that provides
additional habitat area to help support recovery of listed species and other
State conservation goals while reducing flood risk by reducing long-term
maintenance needs.
The CVFPP focuses on implementation and considers the sequential phasing
of incremental elements of the programs. This approach relies on develop-
ment of a firm technical foundation to inform implementation actions in
future CVFPP phases, with an initial focus on the most urgent flood manage-
ment system needs. It also supports development of a sound funding strategy
to pursue effective, long-term flood management in the Central Valley.
1.6.1 Outreach Activities Informing Central Valley

DWR initiated an extensive communications and engagement process
for the 2012 CVFPP by reaching out to partnering agencies, interested
CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD parties, and the public, allowing them to share and solicit information
PROTECTION ACT OF 2008 and offer input and recommendations. The intent was to facilitate open
communication and provide opportunities to participate in CVFPP
California Water Code Section development in a variety of ways, depending on interest and
9615. For the purposes of prepar- availability.
ing the plan, the department shall
collaborate with the United States A comprehensive, multiphase, public engagement planning process was
Army Corps of Engineers and the essential in developing the CVFPP. Figure 1-10 depicts the phases and
owners and operators of flood
major components of the engagement process. In addition, all public
engagement activities are detailed in
management facilities.
Attachment 5 Engagement Record.
PAGE 124 JUNE 2012

Throughout the planning process, many different

venues promoted open and transparent communi- ENGAGING CALIFORNIAS TRIBAL COMMUNITIES IN
cation about important integrated flood manage- FLOOD MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENTS
ment issues and provided partners and interested
parties with opportunities to participate in CVFPP The State respects the perspectives and opinions held
development. DWR staff also communicated by Californias Tribal communities. To that end, the CVFPP
and met with many local maintaining agencies to communication and engagement approach included
solicit feedback on levee performance issues and regular communication with Tribal representatives, and
confirm preliminary results of DWR levee assess- utilized the California Water Plan Tribal Communications
ments (for both urban and nonurban levee evalu- Committee to share and receive information relevant to
ations). Using this information, DWR, USACE, the CVFPP.
the Board, and their partners worked together to It will be important and necessary for local, regional,
characterize problems and future trends, shape State, and federal government agencies to collabo-
and define goals and planning principles, formu- rate with Tribal governments during the planning and
late management actions, and evaluate possible implementation of flood management actions. The local
solutions for integrated flood management. These implementation approach will help ensure that historical
efforts will also be vital to implementation of and valued Tribal lands are respected and considered as
the CVFPP.
planning for flood management improvements continues.
Technical Analysis*
Planning
Identify Problems, Needs, & Objectives Define Management Actions Evaluate Solutions Recommen-
& Form Approaches dations
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3/4

Topic Work Groups Topic Work Groups Topic Work Group
Environmental Stewardship Agricultural Stewardship Climate Change
Climate Change Climate Change
Operations & Maintenance
Levee Performance Regional Work Groups
Management Actions Webinars
Regional Work Groups Technical Workshops
Regional Conditions Upper/Lower Sacramento,
Engagement
Board Adoption Process

Work Groups Upper/Lower San Joaquin,
& Delta Briefings
Upper/Lower Sacramento,
Upper/Lower San Joaquin, Define/review management actions
& Delta 2012
Define/review problems, needs, Workshops
objectives CVFPP
Technical-Based
Community-Based
Integration-Based
Regional Forums Valleywide Forum Valleywide Forum

Plan Development
Public
Regional Management Working Draft Draft
Conditions Actions 2012 Summary 2012
Report Report & CVFPP CVFPP
Periodic briefings with partners and interested parties, local governments, tribal entities, & others
Outreach
Monthly briefings to the Central Valley Flood Protection Board
2009 2010 2012

* State Plan of Flood Control Descriptive Document and Flood Control System Status Report inform technical analysis
KEY: Board = Central Valley Flood Protection Board CVFPP = Central Valley Flood Protection Plan
Figure 1-10. Communication and Engagement Process
JUNE 2012 PAGE 125

COMMUNICATION AND ENGAGEMENT IN PLAN DEVELOPMENT
DWR has gone through considerable effort in getting stakeholder feedback and informing a variety of groups and
individuals across the CVFPP planning area. Subjects have been as varied as the interest groups themselves.
With nearly 300 meetings and more than 40 publications, in addition to a Web site and webinars, the CVFPP has
focused on including interested parties and the public.
Initial meetings with organizations and individuals, January and February 2009
113 meetings with individuals and organizations across the planning area
Regional and Valleywide forums, June 2009, 2010, and December 2010
7 Forums in various areas valleywide
Work groups covering regional conditions and management actions, August 2009 November 2010
55 meetings with stakeholder participation across the planning area
Special Topic work groups and subcommittees, August 2009 November 2011
36 meetings covering a variety of subjects and attended by a variety of stakeholders
Workshops on Flood Management Actions and levee design criteria, July 2010 September 2011
20 workshops focusing on technical issues
Briefings to and coordination with local government, Legislature, interest groups, work groups, and media,
January 2010 May 2011
46 briefings on specific subjects of concern and general information to individual groups
Tribe and tribal organization briefings, October 2009 February 2011

17 briefings for various Tribes and Tribal organizations on a variety of subjects
Numerous newsletters, fact sheets, flyers, posters, and reports were distributed to stakeholders via e-mail and in
meetings and workshops from May 2009 to the present on a variety of flood topics, including technical and envi-
ronmental work associated with the CVFPP.
1.6.2 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan Goals

Primary Goal
Improve Flood Risk Management Reduce the chance of flooding, and
damages once flooding occurs, and improve public safety, preparedness, and
emergency response through the following:
I dentifying, recommending, and implementing structural and non-
structural projects and actions that benefit lands currently receiv-
ing protection from facilities of the SPFC.
F
ormulating standards, criteria, and guidelines to facilitate imple-
mentation of structural and nonstructural actions for protecting
urban areas and other lands of the Sacramento and San Joaquin
river basins and the Delta.
Supporting Goals
Improve Operations and Maintenance Reduce systemwide mainte-
nance and repair requirements by modifying the flood management systems
in ways that are compatible with natural processes, and adjust, coordinate,
PAGE 126 JUNE 2012

and streamline regulatory and institu-

tional standards, funding, and practices The California Central Valley Flood Protection Act of 2008
for operations and maintenance, including (Senate Bill 5) defined objectives, codified in California
significant repairs. Water Code Section 9616, for reducing the risk of flood-
Promote Ecosystem Functions ing in the Central Valley. Per California Water Code
Integrate the recovery and restoration of Section 9616, the CVFPP is to describe both structural
key physical processes, self-sustaining and nonstructural means for improving the perfor-
ecological functions, native habitats, and mance and eliminating the deficiencies of levees, weirs,
species into flood management system bypasses, and other SPFC facilities. Wherever feasible,
improvements. these actions should meet multiple objectives, including
the following:
Improve Institutional Support Develop
Reduce the risk to human life, health, and safety
stable institutional structures, coordination
from flooding, including protection of public
protocols, and financial frameworks that
safety infrastructure.
enable effective and adaptive integrated
flood management (designs, operations Expand the capacity of the flood management system
and maintenance, permitting, prepared- in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley to either reduce
floodflows or convey floodwaters away from urban areas.
ness, response, recovery, and land use and
development planning). Link the flood protection system with the water
supply system.
Promote Multi-Benefit Projects
Describe flood management projects and Reduce flood risks in currently nonurbanized areas.
actions that also contribute to broader Increase the engagement of local agencies willing to par-
integrated water management objectives ticipate in improving flood protection, ensuring a better
identified through other programs. connection between State flood protection decisions and
local land use decisions.
CVFPP Goals, described above, provide guidance
for the formulation of its specific policies and Improve flood protection for urban areas to the urban
physical elements. The goals also capture guid- level of flood protection.
ance and objectives provided in the authorizing Promote natural dynamic hydrologic and geomorphic
legislation (California Water Code Section 9616), processes.
summarized in the sidebar. Reduce damage from flooding.
Increase and improve the quantity, diversity, and connec-
1.6.3 Plan Formulation Process tivity of riparian, wetland, floodplain, and shaded riverine
Plan formulation for the 2012 CVFPP was a multi- aquatic habitats, including the agricultural and ecological
step process. First, DWR, the Board, and partici- values of these lands.
pants in the outreach process worked together Minimize flood management system operations and
to define flood risks and related problems in the maintenance requirements.
Central Valley and articulate the CVFPP Goals.
Promote the recovery and stability of native species
Basic principles to guide how the plan was to be populations and overall biotic community diversity.
developed and implemented were also collabora-
Identify opportunities and incentives for expanding or
tively developed.
increasing use of floodway corridors.
A wide range of individual management actions Provide a feasible, comprehensive, and long-term financ-
were identified as possible ways to address the ing plan for implementing the CVFPP.
goals and planning principles. Management Identify opportunities for reservoir reoperation in
actions are individual tactics or strategies, includ- conjunction with groundwater flood storage.
ing physical improvements and policy changes,
that address the CVFPP Goals while adhering to
the planning principles.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 127
Given the large geographic scope and range of perspectives affecting flood manage-
ment solutions in the Central Valley, thousands of potential solutions could have
been formed by combining the management actions in different ways. Instead, the
management actions were combined to create a manageable range of flood manage-
ment approaches. Evaluation of these preliminary approaches identified trade-offs
between benefits, costs, and other decision making factors, and identified the most
promising elements of each approach.
Computer models were used to evaluate the hydrologic and hydraulic performance
of the flood management system, comparing the existing system to preliminary
approaches with various combinations of levee improvements, expanded bypasses,
and additional reservoir storage. These models simulated storm precipitation, runoff,
reservoir operations, and flows moving downstream through the system to the Delta.
The models took into account levee heights and physical condition, weir spills, levee
failures, and other dynamic processes that can occur during major floods. The output
from these hydrologic and hydraulic models was used in additional models to esti-
mate expected annual flood damages in the protected floodplains.
This suite of computer models made it possible to evaluate flood system perfor-
mance and the potential systemwide effects (both benefits and impacts) of various
improvements in terms of flows, velocities, and stages.
Costs of capital improvements and programs were also evaluated on a reconnais-

sance level for the purpose of comparing preliminary approaches. Cost estimates
used in this report were based on 2011 dollars. More detailed cost evaluations,
taking into account financing costs, inflation, and implementation time, will be de-
veloped as part of a Financing Plan for the CVFPP and during subsequent feasibility
study analyses.
Section 2 discusses the preliminary approaches and summarizes how each approach
meets the legislative objectives and goals of the CVFPP. The State Systemwide
Investment Approach (SSIA), described in Section 3, was formulated after evalu-
ation of the preliminary approaches and determining that the most reasonable and
cost-effective approach to reducing flood risks, while addressing other key goals,
was to combine key elements from each of the three preliminary approaches.
1.6.4 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan Implementation

The CVFPP will guide State, federal, and local actions for improving flood manage-
ment in areas currently protected by facilities of the SPFC. The CVFPP addresses
the unique responsibilities of the State, as they relate to the SPFC.
The 2007 flood legislation requires cities and counties in the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Valley to incorporate information from the CVFPP into local land use plans
and projects after the CVFPP is adopted. Subsequently, cities and counties will also
be required to make findings related to the urban level of flood protection (California
Government Code Sections 65865.5, 65962, and 66474.5).
PAGE 128 JUNE 2012

COORDINATION WITH OTHER PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS
DWR will continue to coordinate with other flood management and ecosystem enhancement work during CVFPP
implementation. Following are a few key examples:
Statewide Flood Management Planning Program. The comprehensive Statewide Flood Management Planning Pro-
gram is assessing flood risk statewide to inform development of the States flood management policies and invest-
ment decisions over the next 15 20 years. This is a program complementary to the CVFPP that focuses on areas
outside the SPFC, including the Delta.
Delta Stewardship Councils Delta Plan. The Delta Plan is driven by coequal goals of providing a more reliable
water supply for California and protecting, restoring, and enhancing the Delta ecosystem. The coequal goals shall
be achieved in a manner that protects and enhances the unique cultural, recreational, natural resource, and agricul-
tural values of the Delta as an evolving place. The plan also includes policies and recommendations to reduce risk to
people, property, and State interests in the Delta.
Bay Delta Conservation Plan. When complete, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan will provide the basis for issuing
of endangered species permits for operation of State and federal water projects. The plan would be implemented
over the next 50 years. The heart of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan is a long-term conservation strategy that sets
forth actions needed for a healthy Delta and making modifications to the conveyance of the State and federal water
projects. Ecosystem enhancement activities may extend into areas protected by the SPFC (e.g., the Yolo Bypass);
therefore, those activities are incorporated into the CVFPP.
Coordination with Other Flood Management and Ecosystem Restoration Programs. DWR will continue coordination
with other programs to improve synergy among various flood management and environmental restoration invest-
ments, including programs such as the San Joaquin River Restoration and Fish Passage Improvement projects.
Other Ongoing Activities. DWR will continue to coordinate with many other ongoing activities within the watersheds
of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River basins. Many of the ongoing flood protection improvements have
been incorporated into the SSIA and are expected to eventually become part of the SPFC. DWR will coordinate
CVFPP activities with the Integrated Regional Water Management Plans, California Water Plan Updates, and other
activities to integrate flood management in these programs.
Future updates to the 2012 CVFPP will incorporate new and revised information and
also review and realign goals and actions as specific projects are implemented and
conditions in the Central Valley evolve. Additional activities, such as local and
regional studies, federal feasibility studies, and environmental compliance evalua-
tions, will occur to support implementation of physical elements or features of the
CVFPP.
Section 4 describes the framework for formulating the implementation and financing
strategy for the CVFPP. DWR recognizes that funding provided by Propositions 1E
and 84 will not be sufficient to realize all of the improvements to flood management
in the Central Valley envisioned over time. The 2012 CVFPP includes a financing
strategy to support implementation; however, a detailed implementation schedule
and financing plan will be prepared after the CVFPP is adopted.
In mutual recognition of the importance of close collaboration and coordination on

Central Valley flood risk reduction measures, USACE, DWR, and the Board are
JUNE 2012 PAGE 129

conducting a parallel planning process, the Central Valley Integrated Flood Manage-
ment Study (CVIFMS), with a scheduled completion date of 2017. It is anticipated
that CVIFMS will make recommendations leading to Congressional authorization
and federal participation in future flood risk reduction projects, including
the CVFPP.
1.6.5 2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan

Organization
The CVFPP is organized as follows:
Section 1 Responding to the Need for Improved Flood Management in
the Central Valley presents historical flood context, existing and future flood
management problems, and an overview of the 2012 CVFPP plan
formulation process, including next steps.
Section 2 Preliminary Approaches discusses actions considered during
the planning process for further policy development and investment
approach formulation.
Section 3 State Systemwide Investment Approach details SSIA policy
directives, systemwide and regional elements, and anticipated outcomes
and costs.
Section 4 Implementing and Managing the State Systemwide
Investment Approach discusses the projects, programs, and actions that will
be needed to implement the CVFPP.
Appendix A includes Board Adoption Resolution 2012-25, amending and
adopting the 2012 CVFPP.
Attachment 1 Legislative Reference outlines legislative requirements
fulfilled by the 2012 CVFPP and the supporting analyses and documentation.
Attachment 2 Conservation Framework describes how environmental
stewardship is integrated into flood management activities, directs the reader
to relevant environmental elements in the CVFPP, and provides additional
detail on environmental planning elements.
Attachment 3 Documents Incorporated by Reference summarizes
documents incorporated by reference in the 2012 CVFPP that may also fulfill
other legislative requirements.
Attachment 4 Glossary defines key terms used in the CVFPP.
Attachment 5 Engagement Record catalogues and describes the
approaches and accomplishments of communication and engagement activi-
ties to support and complement technical planning processes implemented
through the CVFPP and other related FloodSAFE programs and studies.
Attachment 6 Contributing Authors and Work Group Members List
indexes those who provided substantive comments on and/or content for
development of each of the CVFPP documents as well as members of each
of the CVFPP work groups.
PAGE 130 JUNE 2012

Attachment 7 Plan Formulation Report describes the plan formulation

process for the 2012 CVFPP.
Attachment 8 Technical Analysis Summary Report describes the
technical analyses completed for the 2012 CVFPP.
Attachment 9 Supporting Documentation for Conservation
Framework describes the technical analysis approach, tools, and data
supporting development of the Conservation Framework.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 131

PAGE 132 JUNE 2012

SECTION 2.0 | PRELIMINARY APPROACHES
2.0 PRELIMINARY APPROACHES

Development of the CVFPP included formulation and evaluation of three
significantly different preliminary approaches to address the CVFPP Goals.
The preliminary approaches were primarily used to explore different potential
physical changes to the existing flood management system and to assist in
highlighting the need for policy or other management actions. Evaluation of
these preliminary approaches displayed information on differences in costs,
benefits, and overall effectiveness for use in preparing a preferred approach
the State Systemwide Investment Approach (SSIA).
This section describes formulation and evaluation of the three preliminary

approaches and resulting basic considerations used in developing the SSIA,
described in detail in Section 3.
2.1 Management Actions

Given the large geographic area covered by the existing flood protection system in
the Central Valley, and the resources and problems being addressed, a wide range of
different management actions can be considered for inclusion in the CVFPP. Each
action represents a discrete feature or process to contribute to one or more of the
goals described in Section 1. Through a collaborative process, more than 90 individ-
ual management actions were identified and grouped into the following categories:
Additional floodplain and reservoir storage
Storage operations
Flood protection system modifications
Operations and maintenance
Ecosystem functions
Floodplain management
Disaster preparedness and flood warning
Floodfighting, emergency response, and flood recovery
Policy and regulations
Permitting
Finance and revenue
The management actions generally encompass broad tactics or strategies, rather than
location-specific projects, and vary in their level of detail. They range from physi-
cal and operational improvements to the flood management system to residual risk
management and overall program implementation considerations.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 21

No single management action can achieve all of the CVFPP goals. Each manage-
ment action is an individual building block that may be used with other management
actions for flood risk reduction on systemwide and regional scales, and for managing
residual risk. Each preliminary approach provides a different overall strategy
towards flood management that affects which management actions are included.
2.2 Purposes of Preliminary Approaches

DWR formulated and evaluated three preliminary approaches to inform flood man-
agement policy development and explore the potential accomplishments of different
combinations of physical investments in the flood management system. The prelimi-
nary approaches highlight different ways to focus future flood management invest-
ments and contribute to the CVFPP Goals in different ways, both in magnitude and
geographic scope.
The three preliminary approaches are as follows:

CENTRAL VALLEY OF FLOOD PROTECTION
ACT OF 2008 Achieve State Plan of Flood Control Design
Flow Capacity. This approach focuses on improving
California Water Code Section 9614 existing SPFC facilities so that they can convey their
The Plan shall include design flows with a high degree of reliability based on
(g) An evaluation of the structural improve- current engineering criteria. Levee improvements would be
ments and repairs necessary to bring each made regardless of the areas the levees protect. This
of the facilities of the State Plan of Flood approach provides little opportunity to incorporate benefits
Control to within its design standard. The beyond flood management.
evaluation shall include a prioritized list of Protect High Risk Communities. This approach evaluates
recommended actions necessary to bring improvements to levees to protect life safety and property for
each facility not identified in subdivision (h) high risk population centers, including urban and small com-
to within its design standard. munities. Levees in rural-agricultural areas would remain in
their existing configurations. This approach provides minor
opportunities to incorporate benefits beyond flood manage-
ment.
CENTRAL VALLEY OF FLOOD PROTECTION Enhance Flood System Capacity. This approach would
ACT OF 2008 seek opportunities to achieve multiple benefits through
enhanced flood system storage and conveyance capacity, to
California Water Code Section 9614
protect high risk communities, and to fix levees in place in
The Plan shall include
rural-agricultural areas. This approach combines the features
(i) A description of both structural and non- of the above two approaches and provides more room within
structural methods for providing an urban flood conveyance channels to lower flood stages throughout
level of flood protection to current urban most of the system, with additional features and functions
areas. The description shall also include a for ecosystem restoration and enhancements.
list of recommended next steps to improve
urban flood protection. These preliminary approaches are not alternatives from which a
single, superior alternative can be selected. Rather, these
An urban area means the same as set forth
approaches display a range of potential physical and operation-
in Section 5096.805 (k) of the California
al flood management actions and allow exploration of potential
Public Resources Code.
trade-offs in benefits, costs, and other factors, including cor-
responding needs for residual risk management actions and
PAGE 22 JUNE 2012

necessary policy directives. The three preliminary approaches are intended to

bracket the potential range of future flood management in the Central Valley and
address flood problems in fundamentally different ways, not to achieve the CVFPP
Goals to the same degree. Information provided through evaluations allowed DWR
to select the better performing characteristics and avoid the poorer performing char-
acteristics of each preliminary approach to assemble the SSIA.
To effectively evaluate the preliminary approaches, DWR used available technical

tools to judge how changes to SPFC facilities would affect systemwide performance
while also reducing flood damages, protecting public safety, and restoring degraded
ecosystems. As part of this approach evaluation, DWR developed key quantitative
indicators. Indicators used to assess the performance of the preliminary approaches
include changes to riverine and Delta flood stages, structure and content damages,
crop flood loss damages and associated business income losses, and potential for
life loss.
Findings from evaluation of the three preliminary approaches, combined with

necessary systemwide policies, informed development of the SSIA as the States
proposal for balanced, sustainable flood management in the Central Valley. Parts
of the physical actions contained in the three preliminary approaches, along with
insight on policies and guidance, were combined to form the SSIA.
Although policies are not specifically identified in a separate policy section of this
report, policies are imbedded in duties of the management programs and in the
initiatives outlined in Section 4. In addition, policy statements are within the
description of management actions in Section 3.
2.3 Preliminary Approach: Achieve

State Plan of Flood Control Design
Flow Capacity
This approach focuses on reconstructing SPFC facilities to meet current engineering
criteria without making major changes to the footprint or operation of those facili-
ties. Engineering risk assessment, design, and construction methods have greatly
evolved since the original construction of the SPFC facilities. The system was
largely constructed based on geometric criteria using available soil materials without
extensive investigation of foundation conditions. Subsequent construction of a series
of multipurpose reservoirs benefited the SPFC facilities by reducing peak flood-
flows. Nevertheless, the majority of the SPFC levees are not capable of carrying
their design flows with the degree of reliability based on current engineering criteria
because of problems with levee and foundation reliability. In addition, portions of
the levee system have experienced erosion damage.
This approach was formulated to address legislation that required DWR to consider
structural actions necessary to reconstruct SPFC facilities to their design standard
(California Water Code Section 9614 (g)). This approach also addresses requests
from stakeholders to consider reconstructing the existing flood management system
in place, or without major modification to facility locations. This approach does not
JUNE 2012 PAGE 23

consider improving SPFC facilities to carry floodflows greater than project

design flows, nor other enhancements (e.g., to levee height, width, footprint).
Also, this approach does not seek a specific level of protection in any area.
2.3.1 Major Components

This approach includes major remedial actions to address medium and high
threats to facilities of the SPFC. These threats are identified and described in the
Flood Control System Status Report. Remedial actions include major recon-
struction of SPFC facilities. Medium and high threat factors are those judged to
pose the most significant potential threat to SPFC facility integrity. These factors
include inadequate levee freeboard, inadequate levee geometry, structural insta-
bility, and excessive seepage, as well as inadequate channel capacity to convey
design flows.
To address these threats, this approach includes remediation of about 170 miles
of urban SPFC levees and 1,400 miles of nonurban SPFC levees. This approach
includes remediation of non-SPFC urban levees, as it is recognized that some
non-SPFC levees can affect flooding within the SPFC Planning Area. Figure
2-1 illustrates the general location of levees for which some kind of SPFC levee
remediation would be needed.
The primary objective of these remedial actions is to improve the levee system
to convey SPFC design flows with a high degree of reliability, based on current
engineering design and construction criteria. Levees shown as purple in Figure
2-1 (higher concern) or orange (medium concern) generally display more
performance problems than those shown in green (lower concern). This
approach would address all concerns shown in Figure 2-1.
Remedial actions would primarily include modifications of levees in their

current locations, as follows:
SPFC levees would be modified or reconstructed to address identified
adverse geotechnical conditions to provide a high reliability of accom-
modating design flows.
Levee height would be increased to achieve design freeboard, where
needed, to accommodate the design water surface elevation.
Remedial actions would include different types of stability and seepage berms,
cutoff walls, rock slope protection, increased levee height and/or geometry, and
replacement levees needed for the system to convey design flows.
Operations of existing weirs, bypasses, and other structures within the flood
management system would generally continue as under current conditions. Some
short-term changes in reservoir operations (see Section 3) would be made in
anticipation of, and during, flood events.
PAGE 24 JUNE 2012

Figure 2-1. Levee Conditions Considered in Achieve State Plan of Flood Control Design Flow Capacity Approach
JUNE 2012 PAGE 25

2.3.2 Initial Assessment

Based on an initial assessment, the Achieve SPFC Design Flow Capacity Approach
is estimated to cost approximately $19 billion to $23 billion and take 30 to 35 years
to implement. This approach would provide an approximate 43 percent reduction in
annual flood damages compared to current conditions.
This approach would improve the reliability of SPFC facilities compared with exist-
ing conditions. Since the original designs did not consider geotechnical and other
risk factors addressed by current engineering criteria, reconstruction would signifi-
cantly improve reliability of the levee system and the level of protection provided by
the SPFC over that of existing conditions. However, the level of protection would be
highly variable throughout the system and not linked to the land uses at risk within
the floodplain.
In many locations, levee reconstruction would result in

ACHIEVE SPFC DESIGN FLOW increased peak flows and stages compared with current condi-
CAPACITY APPROACH tions because of the reduction in levee failures. Consequently,
Reconstruction of approximately 1,600
this approach would only partially address the primary CVFPP
miles of levee. goal of improving flood risk management.
Reconstruction of levees in their current Investments in SPFC reconstruction would initially reduce
footprint to safely pass design flows would SPFC operations and maintenance costs. However, the long-
contain more floodflows within channels,
term cost to maintain the system would remain high (similar
thus increasing peak floodflows and stages
throughout the system.
to current conditions) because reconstruction alone would not
address chronic erosion, sedimentation, and other geomorphic
Reduction of approximately 47 percent in conditions inherent to the current system configuration. This
annual flood damage estimates includes
approach would only partially contribute to the goal of im-
structure values and contents and crops.
proving operations and maintenance.
Estimated capital costs are higher for the
Sacramento River Basin because of the Because the footprint and operation of an SPFC facility would
greater number of levees in the basin. remain largely unchanged under this approach, opportunities
to integrate ecosystem restoration and enhancement would be
limited and would not contribute to improved ecosystem functions on a systemwide
scale. Therefore, existing conflicts between environmental stewardship and levee
maintenance practices would continue to hamper the improvement of ecosystem
conditions and public safety. There would also be few opportunities to incorporate
new groundwater recharge or other water-related benefits. Consequently, this
approach would contribute in only a minor way to the supporting goals of promoting
ecosystem functions and multi-benefit projects.
2.4 Preliminary Approach:

Protect High Risk Communities
This approach focuses primarily on physical improvements to facilities of the SPFC
to address the highest threats to public safety and property. These threats predomi-
nate in densely populated areas, including urban areas and small communities sub-
ject to deep or rapid flooding.
PAGE 26 JUNE 2012


This approach includes a variety of physical actions to reduce the chances of flood-
ing in urban areas and small communities where substantial threats to public safety
exist from flooding from major rivers and tributaries with SPFC facilities. This
approach does not include improvements that may be needed to address interior
drainage or other local sources of flooding. Also, this approach includes improve-
ments to non-SPFC levees that protect some urban areas.
DWR assessed flood threat levels based on the population at risk, population density,
flood frequency, flood depth, and proximity to river or tributary flood sources. This
approach focused on reducing flooding from major rivers and waterways associ-
ated with the SPFC; flooding from small drainages, local sources, and interior storm
drainage were not included in the formulation of this approach.
Figure 2-2 shows the urban areas and small communities considered in the Protect
High Risk Communities Approach.
Urban areas in the floodplain (with populations greater than 10,000) are considered
to have high threat levels because of the potentially significant public safety con-
sequences of floods occurring in these densely populated areas within the SPFC
Planning Area. In general, this approach considered structural options for protecting
small communities.
The targeted level of flood protection and the types of flood management improve-
ments considered for urban areas and small communities are summarized below:
Urban areas would achieve protection from a 200-year (0.5% annual chance)
flood event, consistent with the urban level of flood protection requirement.
This would be accomplished via structural repairs, reconstruction, or im-
provements to about 160 miles of urban SPFC levees and about 120 miles of
urban non-SPFC levees to protect a population of about 1 million. This in-
cludes work for Chico, Yuba City, Marysville, Sacramento, West Sacramen-
to, Woodland and Davis, Stockton, and Merced. Repairs and improvements
would typically be implemented within current facility footprints (in-place
fixes) because of the proximity of existing de-velopment and infrastructure.
Small communities would achieve protection from a 100-year (1% annual
chance) flood event, corresponding to the existing federal standard for de-
veloped areas. This would be accomplished primarily via structural repairs
or reconstruction of existing nearby SPFC levees. Construction of new
training levees, ring levees, or floodwalls immediately adjacent to the com-
munities may also be required. The total length of levee improvement and
construction of new levees is approximately 120 miles to protect a popula-
tion of about 47,000. The targeted level of protection for small communi-
ties is considered for planning purposes only, and does not represent a State
requirement or target. A total of 27 small communities were included in
this approach. Some of these small communities adjacent to existing urban
areas may achieve a 100-year level of flood protection or higher as a result
of improvements for the adjacent urban areas.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 27

Figure 2-2. Urban Areas and Small Communities Included in Protect High Risk Communities Approach
PAGE 28 JUNE 2012

Weirs, bypasses, and other control structures would remain unchanged. Some short-
term changes in reservoir operations (see Section 3) would be made in anticipation
of, and during, flood events.

Based on an initial assessment, the Protect High Risk Communities Approach is
estimated to cost between approximately $9 billion to $11 billion and take 15 to 20
years to implement. This approach would provide an approximate 63 percent reduc-
tion in annual flood damages compared to current conditions.
The potential for loss of life and economic damages in urban areas, which would
achieve an urban level of flood protection, would be reduced substantially. Improved
flood protection for small communities would also reduce the potential for loss of
life and economic damages, while preserving the important resources these commu-
nities provide to surrounding rural-agricultural areas. However, levels of protection
elsewhere in the valley, particularly rural-agricultural areas, would generally not
improve. Consequently, this approach only partially addresses the primary goal of
improving flood risk management. Because of the limited extent
of levee improvements, relatively minor changes in peak flood- PROTECT HIGH RISK
flows and stages would occur systemwide. COMMUNITIES APPROACH
Although limited, this approach would include the opportunity Levee improvements limited to urban areas
to improve operations and maintenance of SPFC facilities in and small communities, resulting in minimal
the vicinity of a number of urban areas and small communities, change to how the system functions and to
including provisions for local erosion monitoring and problem peak floodflows and stages.
corrections. However, the long-term cost to maintain the system Significant improvement in public safety
would remain high (similar to current conditions) because this over existing conditions.
approach would not address chronic erosion, sedimentation, and Reduction of approximately 63 percent in
other geomorphic conditions associated with the majority of annual flood damage estimates includes
rural SPFC facilities. Consequently, this approach would only structure values and contents and crops.
partially contribute to the goal of improving operations
Estimated capital costs for improving SPFC
and maintenance.
facilities to achieve urban level of protec-
tion and for protection of small communi-
There would be some opportunities to integrate environmental ties are higher for the Sacramento River
features into small community and urban area protection Basin because of the greater magnitude of
actions, including the construction of waterside berms or in- population at risk.
corporation of native vegetation or habitat. However, because
these opportunities would largely be site-specific, and because
the footprint and operation of the SPFC facilities would remain largely unchanged,
this approach would not significantly contribute to the restoration of ecosystem func-
tions. Also, there would be few opportunities to incorporate groundwater recharge or
other water-related benefits. Consequently, this approach would contribute in only
a minor way to the supporting goals of promoting ecosystem functions and multi-
benefit projects.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 29

2.5 Preliminary Approach:

Enhance Flood System Capacity
This approach focuses on enhancing flood system storage and conveyance capacity
to achieve multiple benefits. This approach incorporates all elements included in the
prior two approaches to reduce flood risks in urban areas and small communities and
at least restore SPFC system capacity in rural areas. Flood system capacity
enhancements would be designed on a systemwide scale to integrate multiple
benefits, including environmental restoration and water supply reliability.

This approach includes modifying the existing footprint and function of the flood
management system primarily to increase the overall conveyance capacity and
floodwater storage, and to provide opportunities for ecosystem restoration and water
resources benefits. This approach also protects high risk communities and fixes
levees in place in rural-agricultural areas to achieve design flow capacity. This
approach does not include improvements that may be needed to address interior
drainage or other local sources of flooding. Also, this approach includes improve-
ments to non-SPFC levees that protect some urban areas.
In general, flood system capacity can be increased through widening floodways and
bypasses, setting back levees away from the active river channel, and increasing
floodwater storage. Floodwater storage can be increased through a combination of
operational changes to existing reservoirs, new reservoir storage, and modified or
new floodplain storage. Widening floodways and setting back levees along some
reaches of major rivers and tributaries also provides significant opportunities to
restore native habitat quantity, quality, and connectivity and to restore natural
processes necessary to support healthy ecosystems.
In addition to the elements included in the prior two approaches, major elements of
the Enhance Flood System Capacity Approach are shown in Figure 2-3 and include
the following:
The existing bypass system in the Sacramento River Basin including the
Sutter and Yolo bypasses and associated inflow weirs forms the central
backbone of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project, forming a corri-
dor for conveying floodflows to the Delta. This approach would increase the
capacity of the existing bypass system to enhance its efficiency and ability to
convey large flood events. Initial analyses indicate that the following combi-
nation of features could effectively enhance the performance of the existing
bypass system:
W
idening the Sutter Bypass by up to 1,000 feet to increase its
capacity by 50,000 cubic feet per second
Widening the Colusa Weir and Bypass and the Tisdale Weir and
Bypass by up to 1,000 feet
PAGE 210 JUNE 2012

Figure 2-3. Ecosystem Improvement and Restoration Projects are Integrated into Risk Reduction Projects
Throughout the System
JUNE 2012 PAGE 211

W
idening the Fremont Weir by about one mile, and widening
portions of the Yolo Bypass to increase its capacity by 40,000
cubic feet per second
Widening the Sacramento Weir and Bypass by about 1,000 feet
This approach also includes a potential new bypass to divert flows from the
Feather River downstream from Oroville Dam along the alignment of
Cherokee Canal into Butte Basin. Initial analyses indicate that a bypass with
a capacity of 32,000 cubic feet per second could reduce peak flood eleva-
tions along the Feather River and help convey floodflows into the existing
bypass system.
In the lower portion of the San Joaquin River Basin, this approach includes a
new bypass to divert flows from the San Joaquin River into the south Delta.
Preliminary analyses indicate that a new bypass at Paradise Cut, or in its
vicinity, with a capacity of about 4,000 cubic feet per second could effective-
ly reduce peak flood stage along the San Joaquin River in the Stockton
metropolitan area.
This approach includes floodway widening along smaller sections of some
rivers by setting back SPFC levees as follows:
Along the right bank of the Feather River (below the Bear River
confluence) to allow opportunities for ecosystem restoration and
to provide continuity with the Sutter Bypass
A
long intermittent sections of the Sacramento River upstream
from the Tisdale Weir to provide a more continuous corridor for
environmental restoration and to address levee conditions
A
long the San Joaquin River between the Merced and
Stanislaus rivers
This approach includes modification to the reservoir release schedule and
flood storage allocation at Oroville Dam and Reservoir (equivalent to an
additional 200,000 acre-feet of flood storage), and coordinated operation
with New Bullards Bar Reservoir, to reduce flood stages on the Feather
River during a 200-year (0.5% annual chance) flood event. Also, in the San
Joaquin River Basin, the State would partner with interested reservoir opera-
tors to increase the flood storage allocation at New Don Pedro, Friant, and
New Exchequer dams by about 400,000 acre-feet to effectively manage the
100-year (1% annual chance) flood event at these reservoirs. These features
help manage the timing and magnitude of peak floodflows before they enter
the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers.
This approach includes approximately 200,000 acre-feet of transitory storage
in the floodplains of the Sacramento River Basin and approximately 100,000
acre-feet of transitory storage in the floodplains of the San Joaquin River
Basin. Floodplain storage effectively works with bypass and floodway ex-
pansion to attenuate flood peaks and provide opportunities for conservation
of agricultural lands and native floodplain habitats.
PAGE 212 JUNE 2012


Based on an initial assessment, the Enhance Flood System Capacity Approach is
estimated to cost between approximately $32 billion to $41 billion and would take
35 to 40 years to implement. This approach would provide an approximate 80 per-
cent reduction in annual flood damages compared to current conditions.
The expansion of system storage and conveyance capacity

would reduce peak flood stages throughout the system. This ENHANCE FLOOD
would result in increased levels of flood protection throughout SYSTEM CAPACITY APPROACH
the system, although levels would continue to vary from loca- Expansion of storage and conveyance
tion to location. Urban areas would achieve an urban level of capacity to attenuate flood peaks, resulting
flood protection, or higher, through the combination of convey- in reduced peak flood stages throughout
ance, storage improvements, and in-place levee improvements. the system. However, peak floodflows may
Flood damages would be significantly reduced to various increase locally in certain reaches as a
degrees throughout the system. Accordingly, this approach result of the proposed expansion
would address the primary goal of improving flood risk man- of bypasses.
agement, although at a high cost. Reduction of approximately 80 percent in
annual flood damage estimates includes
This approach would provide opportunities to address chronic structure values and contents and crops.
erosion, geomorphic conditions, and levee foundation condi- Higher estimated capital costs for the
tions that make operations and maintenance of the current Sacramento River Basin because of the
system costly and unsustainable. Hence, this approach would greater number of levees, and magnitude
significantly address the supporting goal of improving opera- of assets and population at risk.
tions and maintenance. Enlarging the area within the levees,
providing more room for floods and habitat
This approach would also provide opportunities to restore and promoting natural hydrologic and
native habitats (including aquatic, riparian, and floodplain geomorphic processes.
habitats) and improve the quality and connectivity of environ-
mental resources within the flood management system. In
addition, there would be opportunities to improve (1) water supply reliability
through multipurpose reservoir storage projects, (2) conjunctive management of
groundwater and surface water resources, and (3) groundwater recharge within
floodplain storage areas. Accordingly, this approach would address the supporting
goals of promoting ecosystem functions and multi-benefit projects.
2.6 Comparison of Preliminary Approaches

To illustrate the potential tradeoffs among benefits, costs, and other factors relevant
to formulation of the SSIA, the three preliminary approaches are compared accord-
ing to their effectiveness in contributing to the CVFPP Goals and other performance
measures.
The following sections show comparisons among the three approaches. These com-
parisons assisted DWR in selecting superior elements of each preliminary approach
when assembling the SSIA.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 213

2.6.1 Major Elements

Table 2-1 shows major elements of the three preliminary approaches. The first
two approaches differ significantly regarding improving SPFC facilities. The
third approach includes all of the elements of the first two approaches plus
many additional elements.
Table 2-1. Major Elements of Preliminary Approaches
DESIGN FLOW CAPACITY
PROTECT HIGH RISK
SYSTEM CAPACITY
ENHANCE FLOOD
PROJECT LOCATION OR
COMMUNITIES
ACHIEVE SPFC
FLOOD MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
REQUIRED COMPONENTS
Bypasses
New Bypass Construction and Feather River Bypass
Existing Bypass Expansion Sutter Bypass Expansion
Yolo Bypass Expansion
Sacramento Bypass Expansion YES
Lower San Joaquin River Bypass (Paradise Cut)
Components potentially include land acquisition,
levee improvements, and new levee construction
Reservoir Storage and Operations
Forecast-Coordinated Operations/ Fifteen reservoirs with Sacramento River Basin and
YES YES YES
Forecast- Based Operations San Joaquin River Basin
Reservoir Storage/Enlarge Flood Pool 1 Oroville
New Bullards Bar
New Don Pedro YES 1
McClure
Friant
Easements Sacramento River Basin 200,000 acre-feet
YES
San Joaquin River Basin 100,000 acre-feet
Flood Structure Improvements
Major Structures Intake structure for Feather River Bypass
Butte Basin small weir structures
Upgrade and modification of Colusa and Tisdale
weirs
Sacramento Weir widening and automation
Gate structures and/or weir at Paradise Cut
YES
Upgrade of structures in Upper San Joaquin
Bypasses
Low-level reservoir outlets at New Bullards Bar
Dam
Fremont Weir widening and improvement
Other pumping plants and small weirs
System Erosion and Bypass Sediment Cache Creek Settling Basin sediment management
Removal Project Sacramento System Sediment Remediation YES
Downstream from Weirs
PAGE 214 JUNE 2012

Table 2-1. Major Elements of Preliminary Approaches (contd.)
DESIGN FLOW CAPACITY
PROTECT HIGH RISK
SYSTEM CAPACITY
ENHANCE FLOOD
PROJECT LOCATION OR
COMMUNITIES
ACHIEVE SPFC
FLOOD MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
REQUIRED COMPONENTS
Urban Improvements
Target 200-Year Level of Protection Selected projects developed by local agencies,
YES YES
State, federal partners
Target SPFC Design Capacity Urban Levee Evaluations Project results YES 2
Non-SPFC Urban Levee Improvements Includes approximately 120 miles of non-SPFC
levees that are closely associated with SPFC urban
YES YES YES
levees. Performance of these non-SPFC levees may
affect the performance of SPFC levees
Small Community Improvements
Target 100-Year Level of Protection Small communities protected by the SPFC YES 3 YES 3
Target Design Capacity Non-Urban Levee Evaluations Project results YES 2 YES 2
Rural-Agricultural Improvements
Site-Specific Rural-Agricultural Based on levee inspections and other identified
Improvements critical levee integrity needs
Target Design Capacity Non-Urban Levee Evaluations Project results YES 2 YES
Ecosystem Restoration
Fish Passage Improvements Tisdale Bypass and Colusa Bypass fish passage
Fremont Weir fish passage improvements YES
Deer Creek
Ecosystem Restoration and For areas within new or expanded bypasses,
Enhancement contributing to or incorporated with flood risk YES
reduction projects
River Meandering and Other At selected levee setback locations in Sacramento
YES
Ecosystem Restoration Activities and San Joaquin river basins
Notes:
1
All approaches include Folsom Dam Raise, as authorized.
2
Actual level of protection varies by location.
3
Includes all small communities within the SPFC Planning Area.
Key:
SPFC = State Plan of Flood Control
State = State of California
JUNE 2012 PAGE 215

Residual Risk Management

In addition to the major physical elements shown above, each approach would
require different levels of ongoing annual management of residual risk. Emergency
response, flood system operations and maintenance, and floodplain risk management
depend on the configuration and reliability of the physical features included in the
system. Table 2-2 shows residual risk management for each of the three preliminary
approaches. Each column shows the residual risk management actions included for a
preliminary approach. The scale of the risk management actions vary among the
approaches. For example, the Protect High Risk Communities Approach would
Table 2-2. Residual Risk Management
FLOOD ACHIEVE SPFC PROTECT ENHANCE

PROJECT LOCATION OR
MANAGEMENT DESIGN FLOW HIGH RISK FLOOD SYSTEM
REQUIRED COMPONENTS
ELEMENT CAPACITY COMMUNITIES CAPACITY
(included in rural (no rural levee (included in rural

All-weather roads on levee crowns levee repairs) repairs) levee repairs)
Flood information collection and YES YES YES

sharing (small) (large) (small)
Enhanced Flood
Local flood emergency response
Emergency YES YES YES
planning
Response
Forecasting and notification YES
Rural post-flood recovery assistance YES

program (large)
Identify and repair after-event erosion YES YES YES

(small) (large) (small)
Enhanced Develop and implement enhanced

Operations and O&M programs and regional O&M YES YES YES
Maintenance organizations
Sacramento channel and levee

YES YES YES
management, and bank protection
Raising and waterproofing structures

YES 1 YES 1 YES 1
and building berms
Floodplain Purchasing and relocating homes in

YES 1 YES 1 YES 1
Management floodplains
Land use and floodplain management YES YES YES
Note:
1
Ongoing FEMA programs, implementation based on available funding and conformance with federal criteria
Key:
FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency
O&M = operations and maintenance
PAGE 216 JUNE 2012

require a large effort to

RESIDUAL RISK MANAGEMENT
identify and repair after-
Even with the realization of major physical improve- event erosion because rural
ments to the flood management system, the risk of levees are not improved with
flooding can never be completely eliminated. Unan- this approach. The Enhance
ticipated facility failures or extreme flood events may
Flood System Capacity
Approach would require a
cause flooding. This remaining flood threat is called
small effort since all
residual risk.
levees are improved and
DWR manages residual risk through programs gov- many are set back from
erned by DWRs existing organization for FloodSAFE the rivers. See Section 4 for
implementation. These programs are responsible for more discussion of residual
specialized work in the following: risk management.
Flood emergency response
Flood operations and maintenance Costs and Time to
Implement
Floodplain risk management
The estimated costs and time
Areas protected by levees that receive major improve- to implement the preliminary
ments will generally require lower levels of residual approaches are shown
risk management compared with levees that are not in Table 2-3.
improved.
Cost estimates in the table
are for initial costs to imple-
ment physical on-the-ground improvements and ongoing annual costs over 25 years
to manage the residual risk for each approach. These estimates are based on 2011
dollars and will differ in the future. Because the approaches are not complete alter-
natives, the cost estimates are likely low, but suitable for comparison of the prelimi-
nary approaches. In addition, actual implementation costs would likely be higher
than the estimates because of inflation and the length of time needed to implement
the work. The cost estimates allow for planning studies, design, and permitting. The
estimates also include costs for ecosystem mitigation for the first two preliminary
approaches. For the Enhance Flood System Capacity Approach, the goal in integrat-
ing ecosystem restoration and enhancement is to achieve overall habitat improve-
ment, thereby reducing or eliminating the need to mitigate for most ecosystem
impacts. However, depending on the timing of improvements and implementation,
some ecosystem mitigation may be required.
Table 2-3. Estimated Cost of Approaches

LOW HIGH
IMPLEMENTATION
PRELIMINARY APPROACH COST COST
(YEARS)
($ BILLION) ($ BILLION)
Achieve SPFC Design Flow Capacity 19 to 23 30 35
Protect High Risk Communities 9 to 11 15 20
Enhance Flood System Capacity 32 to 41 35 40
Key:
JUNE 2012 PAGE 217

The estimates of time to implement are based on experience with past flood projects,
but with assumptions of more efficient execution of planning and design, engaged
federal and local partners, streamlined permitting, and timely funding. In the past,
many flood protection projects have remained in the feasibility study phase for a
decade or more. Large, complicated projects have often taken several decades to
progress from initial concept to completion. Maintaining focus to complete projects
in a timely manner is often difficult, especially given changing commitments from
State, federal, and local partners over long periods of time.
Peak Flow and Stage Changes

The three preliminary approaches result in different peak flows and stages. Hydro-
logic and hydraulic modeling for the three preliminary approaches provides esti-
mates of peak flow and stage compared to current conditions (No Project) at key
SPFC locations. Modeling considers levee condition and probability of levee fail-
ures, which influence floodwater surface elevations. Figure 2-4 shows peak 100-year
(1% annual chance) floodflows at several of these locations within the Sacramento
River Basin for current conditions (No Project) and the three preliminary approach-
es. The figure also shows the corresponding peak stage change for each preliminary
approach compared to current conditions.
Figure 2-5 shows peak 100-year (1% annual chance) floodflows at several of these
locations within the San Joaquin River Basin for current conditions and the three
preliminary approaches. The figure also shows the corresponding peak stage for each
preliminary approach compared to current conditions.
In general, the Achieve SPFC Design Flow Capacity Approach results in higher river
stages than for existing conditions (No Project) because levee rehabilitation occurs
in place and levee failures are reduced. A separate detailed analysis beyond the scope
of the CVFPP would be needed to identify whether any increased river stage would
cause a significant hydraulic impact. The Protect High Risk Communities Approach
results in relatively little stage change compared with existing conditions because
levee improvements are focused in small areas, and much of the levee system
remains in its current condition. The Enhance Flood System Capacity Approach
generally provides for lower flood stages, except in the upper San Joaquin River
Basin Bypass, because flood peaks are lowered by storage, and bypasses provide
wider flow areas that reduce stages.
Performance in Meeting Goals

Table 2-4 compares the relative contributions of the preliminary approaches to the
CVFPP primary goal of improving flood risk management. Contributions to the
primary goal are described in terms of level of flood protection, public safety, and
economic damages.
Table 2-5 compares the relative contributions of the preliminary approaches to the
CVFPP supporting goals of Improve Operations and Maintenance, Promote
Ecosystem Functions, and Promote Multi-Benefit Projects. Table 2-5 also assesses
the relative completeness of the preliminary approaches described as the ability to
meet the various objectives described in the authorizing legislation.
PAGE 218 JUNE 2012

Sacramento River
at Ord Ferry
ion ce
(ft)
vat rfa
000 w
Wa cfs)
(1, k Flo
Ele er Su
a
APPROACH
t
Pe
No Project 111 115.2

Achieve SPFC
Design Flow Capacity 111 115.4
Protect High Risk
Communities 111 115.2
Enhance Flood
System Capacity 111 115.4
Feather River at Yuba City

ion ce
(ft)
vat rfa
000 w
Wa cfs)
(1, k Flo
Ele er Su
APPROACH
a
t
Pe
No Project 165 70.6

Achieve SPFC
Protect High Risk
Sacramento River
Enhance Flood
System Capacity 102 68.6 at I Street
ion ce
(ft)
Yolo Bypass downstream
vat rfa
000 w
Wa cfs)
(1, k Flo
Ele er Su
from Fremont Weir
APPROACH
t
Pe
ion ce
(ft)
No Project 132 31.3

vat rfa
000 w
Wa cfs)
(1, k Flo
Ele er Su
Achieve SPFC
134 32.5
a
APPROACH Design Flow Capacity

t
Pe
No Project 369 37.8 Protect High Risk

Achieve SPFC
Design Flow Capacity 405 38.7 Enhance Flood
Protect High Risk
Enhance Flood
Sacramento River at Rio Vista

ion ce
(ft)
vat rfa
000 w
Wa cfs)
(1, k Flo
Ele er Su
APPROACH
a
t
Pe
No Project 500 9.6

Achieve SPFC
Protect High Risk
Communities 509 9.6
Enhance Flood
Note: Location of peak flow and water surface elevation estimates for 100-Year storm event at selected monitoring locations in the Sacramento River Basin.
Key: cfs = cubic feet per second ft = feet SPFC = State Plan of Flood Control
Figure 2-4. Simulated Peak Flow and Stage Changes in Sacramento River Basin for 100-year Storm Events
JUNE 2012 PAGE 219

San Joaquin River at Vernalis
ion e
vat rfac
(ft)
000 w
)
cfs
(1, k Flo
Ele er Su
APPROACH
t
Pe
Wa
No Project 59 34.6
Achieve SPFC
Protect High Risk
Communities 60 34.5
Enhance Flood
San Joaquin River at Newman
ion e
vat rfac
(ft)
000 w
)
cfs
(1, k Flo
Ele er Su
APPROACH
a
t
Pe
No Project Wa
31 65.6
Achieve SPFC
Protect High Risk
Communities 31 65.6
Enhance Flood
System Capacity 32.5 65.7
San Joaquin River at Firebaugh

ion e
vat rfac
(ft)
000 w
)
cfs
(1, k Flo
Ele er Su
APPROACH
a
t
Pe
Wa
No Project 7.2 141.4

Achieve SPFC
Design Flow Capacity 7.2 141.4
Protect High Risk
Communities 7.2 141.4
Enhance Flood
System Capacity 6.8 141.1
Note: Location of peak flow and water surface elevation estimates for 100-Year storm event at selected monitoring locations in the
San Joaquin River Basin.
Key: cfs = cubic feet per second ft = feet SPFC = State Plan of Flood Control
Figure 2-5. Simulated Peak Flow and Stage Changes in San Joaquin River Basin for 100-year Storm Events
PAGE 220 JUNE 2012

Table 2-4. Relative Comparison of Preliminary Approach Contributions to

Central Valley Flood Protection Plan Primary Goal
PRELIMINARY APPROACHES
EXISTING SYSTEM
METRIC PROTECT ENHANCE
(NO PROJECT) ACHIEVE SPFC DESIGN
HIGH RISK FLOOD SYSTEM
FLOW CAPACITY
COMMUNITIES CAPACITY
Contributions to Primary Goal Improve Flood Risk Management
Level of Varies throughout Varies throughout High in urban Overall higher pro-
Flood system system areas and small tection, but varies
Protection Most urban areas do Substantial improve- communities, varies throughout system
not have urban level of ment in rural-agri- elsewhere Urban areas achieve
flood protection cultural areas and Urban areas achieve 200-year flood
Protection to rural- partial improvement 200-year flood protection
agricultural areas and in urban areas protection Small communities
small communities SPFC facilities Small communities achieve 100-year
varies widely reliably pass design achieve 100-year flood protection
flow capacities flood protection Overall increased
Levels of flood pro- levels of flood
tection associated protection
with SPFC design throughout
flow capacities vary system
throughout the
system
Public Varies throughout Some improvement Highest improvement Improvement varies
Safety system Improvement in Substantial improve- Improvement in
(focused Public safety threat is urban areas ment in urban areas urban areas
on popu- high for many communi- Improvement in Improvement in Improvement in
lation at ties, particularly those some small commu- small communities small communities
risk) in deep floodplains nities protected by 6% of population and rural-agricultural
79% of population with SPFC facilities with less than areas
less than 100-year 46% of population 100-year protection 5% of population
protection with less than with less than
100-year protection 100-year protection
Economic Very high potential Reduction in rural- Reduction in urban Reduction in urban
Damages 1 for damages agricultural area and small community and rural-agricultural
Economic damages, damages damages area damages
particularly in urban Substantial reduc- Substantial reduc- Substantial
areas, are very high tion throughout rural tion due to focus reduction due to
$329 million/year in areas; some reduc- on protecting urban increased storage
EAD tion in urban areas areas and small and conveyance
43% reduction in communities 80% reduction in
total EAD 63% reduction in total EAD
total EAD
Note:
1
Structure and content values used parcel data from the 2010 June ParcelQuest with an October 2010 price index. Parcel data were updated
based on information (including depreciation, construction quality, construction class, occupancy type, etc.) in reconnaissance-level field surveys
collected from summer 2010 to summer 2011.
Crop data acreages were from the May 2010 DWR GIS land use datasheet. Crop damage unit costs were originated from the Sacramento and
San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study (USACE, 2002) and were adjusted to an October 2010 price index. Expected annual damages
include structure and content, crop, and business income loss.
Key:
DWR = California Department of Water Resources SPFC = State Plan of Flood Control
EAD = expected annual damages USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
GIS = geographic information system
JUNE 2012 PAGE 221

Table 2-5. Comparison of Preliminary Approach Contributions to

Central Valley Flood Protection Plan Supporting Goals and Completeness
EXISTING SYSTEM
GOAL/METRIC PROTECT ENHANCE
FLOW CAPACITY
COMMUNITIES CAPACITY
Contributions to Supporting Goals
Improve Ongoing and long-term Initial decrease in Increase in long-term Decrease in
Operations O&M requirements O&M costs, but O&M requirements long-term O&M
and remain very high remain high long- Potential cost requirements
Maintenance term increase due to Decrease in long-
SPFC reconstruc- the construction of term costs due to
tion would initially approximately 120 modifications that
decrease O&M miles of new levees make the system
requirements to protect small more compatible
Long-term O&M communities with natural geomor-
costs would remain phic processes and
high because of facilitate vegetation
potential conflicts management and
with natural removal of facilities
geomorphic process
Promote Limited opportunities for Limited Limited Substantial
Ecosystem ecosystem restoration opportunities for opportunities for opportunities for
Functions Native habitat may be ecosystem ecosystem ecosystem
integrated into SPFC restoration restoration restoration
facility repair projects, Limited opportuni- Limited opportuni- Floodplain expansion
primarily through mitiga- ties to integrate ties to integrate improves ecosys-
tion ecosystem restora- restoration into tem functions, fish
tion into in-place in-place repairs passage, and the
repairs to SPFC in urban areas, quantity, quality, and
facilities and new facilities diversity of habitats
protecting small
communities
Promote Limited opportunities for Limited opportuni- Limited Enhanced
Multi-Benefit multi-benefit projects ties for multi-benefit opportunities for opportunities for
Projects Limited opportunities to projects multi-benefit projects multi-benefit projects
integrate other benefits Limited opportuni- Limited opportuni- Increased opportuni-
into repairs to SPFC ties to integrate ties to integrate ties to integrate
facilities other benefits into other benefits into water quality,
repairs to SPFC repairs, improve- groundwater
facilities ments, and new recharge, recreation,
levees power, and other
benefits
Completeness (ability to meet legislative objectives)
Ability Do not meet Partially meets Partially meets Mostly meets
to Meet Varied level of protection Limited contribu- Limited contribu- Contributes to all
Objectives throughout the system tions to environmen- tions to environmen- objectives, but at
in Flood and high potential for tal and water supply tal and water supply highest cost and
Legislation risks to public safety and objectives; does not objectives with substantial
economic damages achieve high level impacts to existing
of urban flood land uses (potential-
protection ly low acceptability)
Key:
O&M = operations and maintenance SPFC = State Plan of Flood Control
PAGE 222 JUNE 2012

Sustainability
Table 2-6 compares the sustainability aspects of the preliminary approaches. Sus-
tainability relates to the overall financial, environmental, social, and climate change
adaptability aspects of the flood management system under a given approach.
Table 2-6. Relative Comparison of Preliminary Approach Sustainability

EXISTING SYSTEM
METRIC PROTECT ENHANCE
FLOW CAPACITY
COMMUNITIES CAPACITY 1
Sustainability (financial, environmental, and social)
Social Significant risk to Chance for Some potential to Considerable
public safety and high redirected growth encourage new impacts to existing
economic consequences outside floodplain development in land uses due to
of flooding from where cur- floodplains within floodway expansion
rently planned due and adjacent to Some potential to
to extensive levee urban area and encourage new
improvements in small community development in
nonurban areas improvements floodplains due to
Some land use improved level of
impacts due to flood protection
acquisition/ease-
ments to accommo-
date SPFC
reconstruction
Climate Low system resiliency Does not improve Does not improve Improves flood
Change (i.e., ability to adapt to flood system flood system system resiliency by
Adaptability climate change) resiliency resiliency enhancing storage
and conveyance
Key:
Qualitative Comparison
Considering evaluation information available for the preliminary approaches, in-
cluding information shown on the preceding pages, DWR prepared a qualitative
comparison to show broad differences in potential performance of the approaches.
Figure 2-6 shows estimated relative performance for each preliminary approach. For
example, an open circle indicates the lowest performance and a full circle indicates
the highest performance.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 223

ACHIEVE ENHANCE
SPFC DESIGN PROTECT FLOOD
PERFORMANCE CATEGORY FLOW HIGH RISK SYSTEM
CAPACITY COMMUNITIES CAPACITY
Flood Risk Reduction Benefit
Level of Flood Protection
Life Safety
Reduction in Economic Damages
Regional Economics
Integration and Sustainability
Promote Ecosystem Functions
Sustainable Land Uses
Cost $$$ $$ $$$

Capital Costs $$$ $ $$$$
Operations & Maintenance $$ $$$$ $
BENEFIT KEY COST KEY
Low Moderate-High $ Low-Moderate $$$ Moderate-High

Low-Moderate High $$ Moderate $$$$ High
Moderate
Figure 2-6. Performance Comparison for Preliminary Approaches
Another view of the relative performance of the three preliminary approaches is

shown in Figure 2-7. The figure shows estimated performance in terms of secondary
benefits (supporting goals from Section 1) against the performance for the primary
goal of flood risk reduction. For example, the Achieve SPFC Design Flow Capacity
Approach and the Protect High Risk Communities Approach perform similarly for
secondary benefits, but the Protect High Risk Communities Approach performs
better for flood risk reduction. The figure also plots the size of the approaches
(circles) in proportion to their estimated costs.
PAGE 224 JUNE 2012

High
Enhance Flood
System Capacity
$3241
Billion
Achieve SPFC
Design Flow
Capacity
$911
$1923 Billion
Billion Protect
High Risk
Communities
Low
Low High
Contributions to Primary Goal of Improving Flood Risk Management
KEY: SPFC = State Plan of Flood Control
Figure 2-7. Relative Cost and Performance of Three Preliminary Approaches
2.7 Preferred Approach Meeting Central

Valley Flood Protection Plan Goals
Based on relative comparisons of the three preliminary approaches, the Enhance
Flood System Capacity Approach best meets and exceeds the CVFPP Goals, but
requires the highest level of investment and significant institutional changes. As
shown in Tables 2-5 and 2-6, among the three preliminary approaches the Enhance
Flood System Capacity Approach is the only approach that substantially improves
resiliency to climate change while meeting the objectives delineated in the authoriz-
ing legislation in the highest degree. However, each approach highlights opportuni-
ties to achieve the goals in different ways, to different degrees, and at different costs.
The Enhance Flood System Capacity Approach has a substantially high capital cost,
but lower levee operations and maintenance costs compared to the other approaches.
The Protect High Risk Communities Approach is the least costly approach, and
would result in substantial reduction in flood risks to urban areas and
small communities.
Figure 2-8 shows a schematic of the process to assemble the SSIA. CVFPP Goals
show what needs to be accomplished to solve problems with the SPFC and address
existing challenges to managing the complex flood protection system. Management
actions are the building blocks that are used in various ways to develop the prelimi-
nary approaches. Comparison of the preliminary approaches helps articulate the
trade-offs among various physical actions and also helps develop policies and guid-
ance for the SSIA.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 225

State Systemwide
CVFPP Goals Management Actions Approach Comparison Investment Approach
Primary Goal: Repairs and improvements
Improve Flood Risk to levees, weirs, bypasses Achieve SPFC
Management Design Flow Capacity
New conveyance facilities
Physical Actions
State
Supporting Goals: Operations and mainte-
Improve Operations Protect High Risk Systemwide
nance actions
and Maintenance Communities Investment
Reservoir and floodplain
Promote Ecosystem storage Approach
Functions Enhance Flood
Improve Institutional Habitat conservation and System Capacity
Support ecosystem functions
Promote Multi-Benefit Floodplain management
Policies and Guidance
Projects and residual risk reduction
KEY: CVFPP = Central Valley Flood Protection Plan SPFC = State Plan of Flood Control
Figure 2-8. Formulation and Comparison of Approaches to Flood Management in Central Valley
Examination of the performance of preliminary approaches highlights the need to

develop a State flood management strategy that combines the strengths of each of
the three preliminary approaches into a single approach the SSIA. The examination
considered five distinguishing characteristics that are important from a State invest-
ment perspective: (1) life safety, (2) vibrant agricultural economy, (3) reduction
in economic losses, (4) ecosystem restoration and enhancements, and (5) cost
to implement.
The three preliminary approaches presented above contributed to these character-

istics in different degrees. For example, the Achieve SPFC Design Flow Capacity
Approach would provide protection for rural-agricultural areas, with less emphasis
on an urban level of flood protection and ecosystem benefits. The Protect High Risk
Communities Approach would achieve 200-year (0.5% annual chance) urban protec-
tion and associated life safety benefits, but would not contribute to rural-agricultural
flood risk reduction. The Enhance Flood System Capacity Approach would provide
multiple benefits, but at a high cost. The SSIA also incorporates evolving State poli-
cies and guidance on a number of issues important to effective flood management
in the Central Valley.
The SSIA begins with the Protect High Risk Communities Approach, but encom-
passes aspects of each of the preliminary approaches, to balance achievement of the
CVFPP Goals from a systemwide perspective. The SSIA would also improve rural-
agricultural levees, where feasible. Some rural-agricultural levees would be inte-
grated into system improvements (bypasses) presented in the Enhance Flood System
Capacity Approach. As configured, the SSIA is rooted in the vision for the CVFPP
and is designed for efficient conveyance of floodflows from existing watershed reser-
voirs through the Delta. The SSIA has many beneficial features that were included
in the three preliminary approaches and the cost and time to implement would be
more reasonable.
PAGE 226 JUNE 2012

Following are additional observations on the performance of the preliminary

approaches that contributed to formulation of the SSIA.
Achieve SPFC Design Flow Capacity Improving the existing flood management
system to meet current engineering criteria within its existing footprint:
Is very expensive considering that it primarily addresses the Improve Flood
Risk Management goal and does little for supporting goals, especially for
promoting multi-benefit projects
Level of flood protection is significantly improved throughout the system,
but is spatially highly variable
Would increase the population receiving at least a 100-year (1% annual
chance) level of flood protection from about 21 percent to about 54 percent
compared with existing conditions
May initially improve operations and maintenance conditions, but long-term
benefits are questionable
Does little to improve ecosystem functions
May increase flood risks (residential development) in rural-agricultural areas
Would create significant increases in downstream flood stages over existing
conditions by reducing the chance of levee failures upstream
Would reduce potential flood damages by about 47 percent compared to
existing conditions
Need for residual risk management would be reduced from existing
conditions
Protect High Risk Communities Improving levees in urban areas and

small communities:
Protects, with the least investment, the majority of the population
Does little to address supporting goals of improving operations and mainte-
nance and promoting ecosystem functions
Would do little to contribute to adaptive flood management
Urban areas would achieve 200-year (0.5% annual chance) level of
flood protection
Small communities within the area protected by facilities of the SPFC would
achieve 100-year (1% annual chance) of flood protection
Level of flood protection for rural-agricultural areas would remain
unchanged
Relatively few increases in downstream flood stages from upstream
improvements
JUNE 2012 PAGE 227


existing conditions
Need for residual risk management would be the highest among the
preliminary approaches
Enhance Flood System Capacity Improving urban, small communities, and

rural-agricultural levees along with expanded flow capacity:
Is by far the most expensive approach
Significantly meets all CVFPP Goals
Urban areas would likely exceed 200-year (0.5% annual chance) level of
flood protection
Many small communities would likely exceed 100-year (1% annual chance)
level of flood protection
Most areas, including rural-agricultural areas, would benefit from lower
flood stages, improved levee conditions, and improved levees constructed for
bypass expansion
existing conditions
Need for residual risk management would be the lowest among the
preliminary approaches
Includes significant ecosystem features and multipurpose projects
2.8 Key Implications for State

Systemwide Investment Approach
Evaluation and comparison of the preliminary approaches highlighted various
findings and implications that informed preparation of the SSIA, described in more
detail in Section 3. Key implications are summarized below:
Levels of flood protection should be commensurate with risk within
the floodplains.
Investments should not result in increased flood risk.
Investments should promote actions that increase system flexibility and the
ability to accommodate and attenuate large flood peaks.
High operations and maintenance costs are driven in part by the current
footprint of the levee system, which in many locations is at odds with natural
geomorphic processes.
To fully realize efficient and sustainable operations and maintenance over the
long term, the State should consider changes to institutional arrangements,
practices, and funding.
PAGE 228 JUNE 2012

A comprehensive SSIA should

KEY ELEMENTS OF STATE
develop and implement policies
SYSTEMWIDE INVESTMENT APPROACH
and programs that help manage
residual risks that remain after The vision of an integrated systemwide and sustainable flood
improvement projects are imple- management plan for the Central Valley is to develop a flood
mented. management system that provides for the following:
Systemwide and regional (urban Minimum of 200-year level of protection for urban communities
areas, small communities, and protected by facilities of the SPFC
rural-agricultural areas) elements Lower peak flood stage through much of the system, especially for
representing proposed flood man- the Feather, lower Sacramento, and lower San Joaquin rivers
agement system improvements
100-year level of protection for small communities, where feasible
both have roles in the SSIA.
Proactive floodplain management, including a program to flood-
Central Valley cities and counties
proof and/or relocate structures in the floodplains where building
that wish to continue to develop in ring levees and other flood structures is not feasible
urban areas are required to achieve
Enhancing rural-agricultural area flood protection by repairing
an urban level of flood protection
known localized problems that cause the highest risk of exposure
(200-year flood), defined in
and by restoring all-weather roads on levee crests
California Government Code
Section 65007(l) and California Leveraging flood system improvements to create habitat through
Water Code Section 9602(i). The levee setbacks, waterside planting berms, and extension and ex-
pansion of bypass systems and to connect riparian habitat from the
State supports achieving an urban
Delta to Butte Basin and Oroville and to the San Joaquin River
level of flood protection, at a
minimum, for all existing urban Connecting fishery habitat from the Delta to Yolo and Sutter
and urbanizing areas in the Sys- bypasses and to Butte Creek
temwide Planning Area. Where Supporting policies, implementation programs, and
feasible, the State supports con- financing strategy
sideration of higher levels of flood
protection, particularly for existing urban and adjacent urbanizing areas in
deep floodplains (greater than 3 feet of flooding during a 200-year flood).
From a systemwide perspective, it is in the States interest to support the
continued viability of small communities within the Systemwide Planning
Area to preserve cultural and historical continuity and important social,
economic, and public services to rural-agricultural populations, agricultural
enterprises, and commercial operations.
New development in nonurbanized areas, including small communities, must
meet the national FEMA standard of flood protection, per California Govern-
ment Code Sections 65865.5, 65962, and 66474.5. This corresponds to the
minimum level of flood protection (100-year flood) required to remove or
exclude an area or community from a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) as
defined by FEMA.
Many rural-agricultural areas would benefit from systemwide elements of
the SSIA, which provides direct flood risk reduction benefits by lowering
flood stages and more efficiently moving floods through the system.
While the State supports improving rural-agricultural flood protection to
foster and support economic viability, it should be done in a way that
minimizes the potential for being growth inducing.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 229

The State supports corridor management planning approaches to develop

integrated, multi-benefit projects.
State and local-proposed changes and reforms to FEMAs National Flood
Insurance Program are expected to promote a vibrant agricultural economy
in the rural-agricultural areas that do not have protection from a 100-year
flood.
The State supports implementing integrated projects to achieve multiple
benefits, including environmental conservation and restoration, agricultural
conservation, water supply and quality, and related benefits.
Recognizing the benefits to both public safety and the ecosystem, the State
has a great interest in integrated environmental stewardship and flood
management to leverage investments and associated benefits.
All levels of project planning and development need to consider
opportunities to integrate ecosystem enhancements with flood damage
reduction projects.
The State should encourage programs that provide incentives for including
ecosystem improvements and other multi-benefits to projects, as outlined in
California Water Code Section 12585.7.
PAGE 230 JUNE 2012

SECTION 3.0 | STATE SYSTEMWIDE INVESTMENT APPROACH
3.0 STATE SYSTEMWIDE

INVESTMENT APPROACH
The State Systemwide Investment Approach (SSIA) reflects the States
strategy for modernizing the SPFC to address current challenges and
affordably meet the CVFPP Goals described in Section 1. The preliminary
approaches, described in Section 2, suggested a broad range
of physical and institutional flood damage reduction actions to The State Systemwide Investment
improve public safety and achieve economic, environmental, Approach provides guidance for future
and social sustainability. The SSIA is an assembly of the most State participation in projects and
programs for integrated flood
promising, affordable, and timely elements of the three
management in the Central Valley.
preliminary approaches.
Physical elements for the SSIA are organized into regional and system elements:
Urban, small community, and rural-agricultural improvements
These are physical actions or projects to achieve local and regional benefits.
System improvements These are projects and modifications to the SPFC
that provide cross-regional benefits, improving the overall function and per-
formance of the SPFC, and are generally large system improvements, such
as bypass expansions. The State will provide leadership in developing and
implementing these components.
The regional and system elements require detailed analyses to refine how elements
may complement each other and to develop appropriate justification for future selec-
tion of on-the-ground projects. The SSIA reflects a broad vision for SPFC modern-
ization; therefore, element refinements, additions, and deletions can be expected as a
result of future feasibility studies.
Section 2 introduced elements of the SSIA. The following sections provide a more
detailed description of the SSIA, its estimated cost, residual risk management needs,
and a preliminary presentation of expected performance. Section 4 describes how
the SSIA is expected to be implemented and managed over the next several decades.
3.1 Major Physical Improvements in

Sacramento and San Joaquin
River Basins
Existing SPFC facilities in the Sacramento River Basin are much more extensive
and protect larger populations and assets than SPFC facilities in the San Joaquin
River Basin. In addition, peak floodflows from the Sacramento River Basin can
be about 10 times higher than those from the San Joaquin River Basin. Therefore,
physical improvements included in the SSIA are more extensive within the
JUNE 2012 PAGE 31

Sacramento River Basin than within the San Joaquin River Basin. Table 3-1 shows
important characteristics of the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins.
Table 3-1. Key Characteristics of Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins
SACRAMENTO SAN JOAQUIN
CHARACTERISTICS
RIVER BASIN RIVER BASIN
Land Area Within 500-Year (0.2% annual chance)
1,217,883 697,465
Floodplain (acres)
Population at risk 1 (people) 762,000 312,000
Replacement value of assets at risk ($ millions) 53,000 16,000
Total SPFC Levees (miles) 1,054 448
SPFC Levees with identified threat factors 2 (miles) 852 354

Total Potential 2-Year (50% annual chance)
235,000 85,000
Floodplains (acres)
Currently connected to river (acres) 93,000 26,000
Currently connected and in native/natural habitat (acres) 50,000 19,000
Total Reservoir Capacity Tributary to Area
3
10,477 7,100
(thousand acre-feet)
Reserved Flood Storage Space 3,066 1,881
Notes:
1
Estimated population (from 2000 U.S. Census data) within 500-year floodplain.
2
Source: Flood Control System Status Report (DWR, 2011). Includes Urban Levee Evaluations Project classifications Marginal and
Does Not Meet Criteria, and Non-Urban Levee Evaluations Project categories B (Moderate) and C (Low).
3
Only includes reservoirs with dedicated flood storage space.
Key:
Major physical (capital improvement) elements included in the

SSIA are shown in Table 3-2 and in the schematics in Figures 3-1
CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD and 3-2 for the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins. The fol-
PROTECTION PLAN OF 2008 lowing sections provide more description of urban, small commu-
nity, rural-agricultural, and system improvements.
California Water Code Section 9614.
(i) A description of both structural and
3.2 Urban Flood Protection
nonstructural methods for providing Consistent with legislation passed in 2007, the SSIA proposes
an urban level of flood protection to improvements to urban (populations greater than 10,000) levees
current urban areas where an urban to achieve protection from the 200-year (0.5% annual chance)
area means the same as set forth in flood, at a minimum. With some exceptions, existing SPFC levees
subdivision (k) of Section 5096.805 in urban areas are often located immediately adjacent to houses
of the Public Resources Code. The and business, leaving few opportunities for setting levees back or
description shall also include a list of
making improvements that enlarge levee footprints. Therefore,
reconstruction of existing urban levees is generally the method for
recommended next steps to improve
increasing flood protection. The State is already supporting many
urban flood protection.
SPFC urban levee improvement projects through its Early Imple-
mentation Program grants program and other FloodSAFE efforts,
including some setback levees.
PAGE 32 JUNE 2012

Table 3-2. Major Physical and Operational Elements of Preliminary Approaches and State Systemwide
Investment Approach
INVESTMENT APPROACH
ACHIEVE SPFC DESIGN
STATE SYSTEMWIDE
PROTECT HIGH RISK
SYSTEM CAPACITY
ENHANCE FLOOD
FLOW CAPACITY
FLOOD MANAGEMENT PROJECT LOCATION OR
COMMUNITIES
ELEMENT REQUIRED COMPONENTS
Bypasses
New Bypass Construction and Feather River Bypass
Existing Bypass Expansion Sutter Bypass expansion
Yolo Bypass expansion
Sacramento Bypass expansion
Lower San Joaquin River Bypass YES g YES
(Paradise Cut)
Components potentially include land
acquisition, conservation easements, levee
improvements, new levee construction
Reservoir Storage and Operations
Forecast-Coordinated Fifteen reservoirs within Sacramento River
Operations/Forecast-Based Basin and San Joaquin River Basin YES YES YES YES
Operations
Reservoir Storage/Enlarge Oroville
Flood Pool 1 New Bullards Bar
Don Pedro YES g
McClure
Friant
Easements Sacramento River Basin 200,000 acre-feet
YES
San Joaquin River Basin 100,000 acre-feet
Flood Structure Improvements
Major Structures Intake structure for new Feather River
Bypass
Upgrade and modification of Colusa and
Tisdale weirs
Sacramento Weir widening and automation
Gate structures and/ or weir at Paradise Cut YES g YES
Upgrade of structures in Upper San Joaquin
bypasses
Low level reservoir outlets at New Bullards
Bar Dam
Fremont Weir widening and improvement
Other pumping plants and small weirs
System Erosion and Bypass Cache Creek Settling Basin sediment
Sediment Removal Project management
YES YES
Sacramento system sediment remediation
downstream from weirs
Urban Improvements
Target 200-Year Level of Selected projects developed by local agencies,
Protection State, federal partners
YES YES g YES
Target SPFC Design Capacity Urban Levee Evaluations Project results YES 2
JUNE 2012 PAGE 33

Table 3-2. Major Physical and Operational Elements of Preliminary Approaches and State Systemwide
Investment Approach (contd.)
INVESTMENT APPROACH
ACHIEVE SPFC DESIGN
STATE SYSTEMWIDE
PROTECT HIGH RISK
SYSTEM CAPACITY
ENHANCE FLOOD
FLOW CAPACITY
FLOOD MANAGEMENT PROJECT LOCATION OR
COMMUNITIES
ELEMENT REQUIRED COMPONENTS
Non-SPFC Urban Levee Includes approximately 120 miles of non-SPFC

Improvements levees that are closely associated with SPFC
urban levees. Performance of these non-SPFC YES YES YES YES
levees may affect the performance of SPFC
levees.
Small Community Improvements
Target 100-Year Level of Small communities protected by the SPFC
Protection
YES 3 YES 3 g YES 4
Rural-Agricultural Improvements
Site-Specific Rural-Agricultural Based on levee inspections and other identified
Improvements critical levee integrity needs g YES
Ecosystem Restoration
Fish Passage Improvements Tisdale Bypass and Colusa Bypass
fish passage
Fremont Weir fish passage improvements
YES g YES
Deer Creek
Ecosystem Restoration and For areas within new or expanded bypasses,
Enhancement contributing to or incorporated with flood risk YES YES
reduction projects
River Meandering and Other At selected levee setback locations in YES
Ecosystem Restoration Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins YES (at select
Activities locations)
Notes:
1
All preliminary approaches and State Systemwide Investment Approach include Folsom Dam Raise, as Congress authorized.
2
Actual level of protection varies by location.
3
Includes all small communities within the SPFC Planning Area.
4
Includes selected small communities within the SPFC Planning Area.
Key:
PAGE 34 JUNE 2012

Figure 3-1. State Systemwide Investment Approach Sacramento River Basin Major Capital
Improvements under Consideration
JUNE 2012 PAGE 35

Figure 3-2. State Systemwide Investment Approach San Joaquin River Basin Major Capital
Improvements under Consideration
PAGE 36 JUNE 2012
Improvements to urban levees or floodwalls should follow DWRs Urban Levee

Design Criteria, at a minimum. The State strongly supports consideration of features
that offer greater system resilience, such as levees that can withstand overtopping
without catastrophic breaching. Another example is to build compartmentalized
floodplains (the use of secondary levees, berms, or elevated roadways within pro-
tected areas to reduce the geographic extent of flooding when a failure occurs).
Levee projects in urban areas should consider setbacks, to the

extent feasible, based on the level of existing development and LEVEE RESILIENCY
the potential benefits. These projects should also preserve and/ Reducing the risk of catastrophic system
or restore, at minimum, shaded riparian habitat corridors along failure is an important aspect of flood risk
the waterside toe of levees. Other improvements will consider
reduction. Levee breaches increase flood
incorporating ecosystem preservation, restoration, and enhance-
losses and recovery costs, and lengthen
ments in project designs. Urban improvements should also be
the time needed to rebuild. USACE esti-
implemented and maintained consistent with the States vegeta-
mates that at least half of the direct losses
tion management approach (see Section 4.2 and Attachment 2
from Hurricane Katrina may have been
Conservation Framework).
averted, had catastrophic breaching not
In addition to urban area levees, other system and regional occurred (Building a Stronger Corps: A
elements included in the CVFPP, such as reservoir operational Snapshot of How the Corps is Applying Les-
changes and new or expanded bypasses, have the potential sons Learned from Katrina (USACE, 2009)).
to contribute to achieving an urban level of flood protection. Designing facilities to withstand overtop-
These elements could potentially reduce the need for urban area ping and incorporating resiliency into over-
levee improvements, and/or provide additional system flex- all system design not only help to reduce
ibility and resiliency in accommodating hydrologic uncertainty, flood losses, but also provide flexibility to
including climate change. accommodate changing climate conditions,
floodplain uses, and technical standards.
The CVFPP does not include improvements that may be needed
to address interior drainage or other local sources of flooding.
The State could pursue improvements to non-SPFC levees (see Section 3.6) that
protect some urban areas even though the State has no responsibility over these
levees at this time. The decision to add these levees to the SPFC would require
Board action. Alternatively, the State may choose to participate in funding levee
reconstruction or improvements, if found to be feasible.
DWR will evaluate and participate in projects (in-place and with setbacks, if appro-
priate) that contribute to achieving an urban level of flood protection through recon-
structing, rehabilitating, or improving SPFC facilities for the following urban areas
in the Central Valley:
City of Chico Improvements include reconstruction of existing SPFC

urban levees bordering the City of Chico to provide protection from flooding
along local tributaries.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 37

Yuba City and City of Marysville Improvements for this metropolitan

area and adjacent existing urbanizing corridor (along Highway 99 north of
Yuba City, and along Highway 70 within and south of Marysville) include
the following:
Continue work to reconstruct and/or improve SPFC levees to
urban design criteria along the Feather and Yuba rivers immedi-
ately adjacent to Marysville, consistent with ongoing local efforts.
The State is supporting ongoing work to achieve an urban level
of flood protection for the City of Marysville as part of the Yuba
Basin Project. This project encompasses four phases of levee im-
provements and other actions, with an ultimate goal of protecting
Marysville from a 250-year (0.4% annual chance) flood event.
Continue to work with Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency to
develop and implement projects to achieve an urban level of flood
protection for Yuba City and adjacent existing urbanizing areas.
This includes reconstructing and/or improving SPFC levees to
urban design criteria along the right bank of the Feather River,
adjacent to and upstream from Yuba City, as part of the Feather
River West Levee Project.
Sacramento Metropolitan Area Improvements for this area include the
following:
Reconstruct and/or improve SPFC levees protecting urban areas
along the Sacramento and American rivers to urban design
criteria, as needed, to complete ongoing urban flood protection
improvements within Sacramento County (includes the Laguna
portion of Elk Grove). The State has supported the Sacramento
Area Flood Control Agencys urban flood protection projects
through cost sharing and grant funding under the FloodSAFE
Early Implementation Program. Completed work that supports
the SSIA includes levee improvements along the American River
under the American River Watershed Common Features Project,
and elements of the South Sacramento County Streams Project.
Ongoing work includes levee improvements under the Natomas
Levee Improvement Program and construction of an auxiliary
Levee Improvements in Natomas
spillway at Folsom Dam as part of the Folsom Dam Joint
Federal Project.
Reconstruct and/or improve SPFC levees to complete ongoing
urban protection improvements for the City of West Sacramento.
The State has supported urban levee improvements by the West
Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency through the FloodSAFE
Early Implementation Program grants program. Locally planned
work, for potential State participation, includes levee reconstruc-
tion and raising, cutoff walls, setback levees, and erosion protec-
tion features.
PAGE 38 JUNE 2012

Evaluate the potential benefits of widening, automation, and

operational changes to the Sacramento Weir and Bypass for the
purpose of reducing peak flood stage along the Sacramento and
American rivers, in combination with expansion of the Yolo Bypass
(described later under System Improvements). Weir automation
and other improvements have the potential to improve operational
safety and flexibility.
Cities of Woodland and Davis Continued participation in the Lower
Cache Creek, Yolo County Woodland Area Feasibility Study, which consid-
ers modifications to the Cache Creek Settling Basin and other facilities to
determine their feasibility and contribution toward achieving urban and rural-
agricultural flood improvement in the area. Also evaluate the Cache Creek
Settling Basin to identify a long-term program for managing sediment and
mercury to maintain the flood conveyance capacity of the Yolo Bypass.
City of Merced Continued support of the Merced County Streams Project,

which is contributing to improving flood protection for the City of Merced.
Stockton Metropolitan Area Improvements for this area include

the following:
I mprove SPFC levees along the San Joaquin River and tributary
channels.
Evaluate the potential benefits of and State interest in local flood-
gates and control structures, as they relate to facilities of the SPFC
in and around Stockton, and contribute to achieving an urban level
of flood protection.
Other Areas For urban areas also protected by non-SPFC levees, the State
may evaluate its interest in participating in levee improvements under other
State programs.
3.3 Small Community Flood Protection

Many small communities in the SPFC Planning Area are expected to receive in-
creased flood protection through implementation of system elements and improve-
ments focused on adjacent urban areas, although some of these improvements may
take many years to implement. The State will evaluate investments to preserve small
community development opportunities without providing urban level of protection.
However, some small communities adjacent to existing urban areas may achieve a
100-year level of flood protection or higher as a result of improvements for the ad-
jacent urban areas. Additional State investments in small community protection will
be prioritized based on relative community flood threat levels, considering factors
such as population, likelihood of flooding, proximity to flooding source, and depth
of flooding. Other factors considered in prioritizing small community flood improve-
ments include financial feasibility and achievement of the CVFPP Goals with respect
to integrating multiple benefits.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 39

In general, the State will consider the following structural and nonstructural options
for protecting small communities in the SPFC Planning Area from a 100-year
(1% annual chance) flood:
Protecting small communities in-place using ring levees, training levees,
or floodwalls when improvements do not exceed a certain predetermined
cost threshold. For planning purposes for the SSIA, DWR used a preliminary
cost threshold of $100,000 per house protected, an approximate value for
elevating or flood proofing a house. When estimated costs exceed the thresh-
old, nonstructural means for flood protection will be considered. DWR will
further evaluate this threshold during future studies.
Reconstructing or making improvements to adjacent SPFC levees.
Implementing nonstructural improvements, such as raising/elevating struc-
tures, flood proofing, willing seller purchases, and/or relocating structures,
when the in-place improvements described above are not feasible.
In some cases, small communities may achieve flood protection as part of adjacent
urban area improvements.
Based on planning level estimates, 15 small communities would receive 100-year

(1% annual chance) flood protection from about 80 miles of levee improvements or
new levee construction. A new levee is one constructed from the ground up, not a
levee that has been repaired in place. Another five small communities would receive
100-year (1% annual chance) flood protection, at minimum, through implementation
of urban and system improvements included in the SSIA. Seven small communities
would receive flood protection through floodplain management actions such as flood
proofing or raising structures.
Improvements to small communities should also be implemented and maintained

consistent with the States vegetation management approach (Attachment 2 Con-
servation Framework). Other improvements will consider incorporating ecosystem
preservation, restoration, and enhancements in project designs.
3.4 Rural-Agricultural Area Flood Protection

Rural-agricultural area levee improvements included in the SSIA are not as exten-
sive as for urban areas and small communities, reflecting the lower levels of devel-
opment within these floodplains.
3.4.1 State Plan of Flood Control Levees

The State recognizes that federal engineering guidance and design standards may
result in cost-prohibitive levee repairs for many rural-agricultural areas. The State
will work with rural-agricultural communities to develop applicable rural levee
critera repair for SPFC levees (see Section 4). The State will also evaluate invest-
ments to preserve rural-agricultural activities that discourage incompatible develop-
ment, and encourage compatible development, within floodplains.
PAGE 310 JUNE 2012

The States participation in rural-agricultural SPFC facility reconstruction projects

may also require inclusion of nonstructural measures to manage risks in adjacent
floodplains, such as purchasing agricultural conservation easements from willing
landowners, where consistent with local land use plans. In addition to improving
flood management, project designs will consider restoring shaded riparian aquatic
habitat, wetlands, or other habitat. This includes protection and enhancement of
existing healthy ecological communities, in addition to the enhancement/restoration
of degraded ecosystem services and functions. Flood risk reduction projects in rural-
agricultural areas that can achieve multiple resource benefits will be preferable to
single purpose projects, and are likely to be encouraged through enhanced State and
federal cost-sharing.
In general, the State will consider the following rural-agricultural flood protection
options, with a focus on integrated projects that achieve multiple benefits:
SPFC levee improvements in rural-agricultural areas will focus on maintain-
ing levee crown elevations and providing all-weather access roads to facili-
tate inspection and floodfighting.
Levee improvements, including setbacks, may be used to resolve known
performance problems (such as erosion, boils, slumps/slides, and cracks).
Projects will be evaluated that reconstruct rural SPFC levees to address
identified threat factors, particularly in combination with small community
protection, where economically feasible.
Agricultural conservation easements that preserve agriculture and prevent
urban development in current agricultural areas may be purchased, when
consistent with local land use plans and in cooperation with willing land-
owners.
The State, in consultation with local entities, will prioritize available funding among
all-weather roads and other important investments, addressing the greatest need first.
3.4.2 Hydraulic Structure Upgrades

In addition to hydraulic structures mentioned as part of urban and system improve-
ments, existing hydraulic structures in the upper San Joaquin River Basin need to
be upgraded because of facility age or operational problems. In some cases, gates
do not operate properly, new automation is needed, or the structures are otherwise
deteriorated.
3.4.3 Local Non-State Plan of Flood Control Levees

During future feasibility studies, the State will evaluate projects to maintain the
function of local levees (not part of the SPFC) if they contribute to the effective op-
erations and maintenance of the SPFC. The State may be able to participate through
existing programs on feasible projects.
3.4.4 Removal of State Plan of Flood Control Facilities

The State will evaluate potentially removing (physically or administratively) facili-
ties of the SPFC in rural areas, including rock revetment, levees, and other facilities,
JUNE 2012 PAGE 311

consistent with criteria presented in Section 4. Removing small portions of the SPFC
that are no longer functioning would reduce the States responsibility and costs for
operations and maintenance. Facilities that may be evaluated for potential removal
from the SPFC include the following:
A two-mile long segment of the Feather River right-bank levee, upstream
from the Thermalito Afterbay, which was replaced by an embankment con-
structed to create Thermalito Afterbay (on its southeast side).
Approximately seven miles of levee included in the Lower San Joaquin
River and Tributaries Project, which is currently being physically breached
and removed. This effort is part of a nonstructural project modification,
under the authority of Public Law 84-99, following damage during the 1997
floods.
Intermittent SPFC levees along reaches
of the San Joaquin River and in the
vicinity of the Mariposa Bypass and
Deep Slough. If pursued, removal
projects should consider integration of
wetland, riparian, and floodplain habitat
restoration.
Some existing, intermittent bank
protection sites along the Sacramento
River between Red Bluff and Chico
Landing, now unconnected with the
active river channel and believed to no
longer provide a flood management
function by erosion control.
Levees and pumping plants from the
Middle Creek Project at the west end of
Clear Lake, for which removal is
currently underway. Facilities removal
Floodflow over the Moulton Weir
was authorized by Congress in the
Water Resources Development Act
of 2007.
3.5 System Improvements

System elements include physical actions or improvements with the potential to
provide benefits across large portions of the flood management system, and improve
the overall function and performance of the SPFC in managing large floods. These
actions enhance the systems overall ability to convey and attenuate flood peaks
through expansion of bypass capacity and storage features. System improvements
provide flood protection benefits to urban, small community, and rural-agricultural
areas by lowering flood stages.
PAGE 312 JUNE 2012

These actions also present significant opportunities to improve ecosystem functions

and continuity on a systemwide level. System improvements should also be imple-
mented and maintained consistent with the States vegetation management approach
(see Section 4.2 and Attachment 2 Conservation Framework).
The following sections describe system elements included in the SSIA.
3.5.1 Weir and Bypass System Expansion

The Sutter and Yolo bypasses, in combination with their appurtenant control features
the Moulton, Colusa, Tisdale, Fremont, and Sacramento weirs/bypasses function
as the central backbone of the Sacramento River Flood Control Project. This weir
and bypass system redirects damaging floodflows away from the main channels of
the Sacramento, Feather, and American rivers, conveying up to 490,000 cubic feet
per second during large flood events. The considerable capacity of the bypass system
also slows the movement of floods, effectively attenuating flood peaks and metering
flows into the Delta. For initial planning purposes, technical evaluations are based on
construction of all bypass expansions and extensions described below.
Bypass expansions would increase the overall capacity of the flood system to convey
large flood events. Peak flood stages would be reduced along the Sacramento River
and, to a lesser extent, along its tributaries. The lower stages throughout the system
benefit flood management in urban, small community, and rural-agricultural areas.
Floods from storms centered within different watersheds of the Sacramento River
Basin have different characteristics, and bypass system expansion would contribute
to greater system flexibility in managing these different flood events.
Improvements would be designed and operated in consideration of ecosystem

restoration features and benefits, including conservation and restoration of aquatic
and floodplain habitats and continued compatible agricultural land uses within the
bypass. Improvements may include contouring and channelizing to facilitate proper
draining and to lessen the possibility of entraining fish. Contouring may also
increase the frequency of floodplain activation in places to promote wetland and
riparian habitat success. When consistent with local land use plans, and in coopera-
tion with willing landowners, the State will consider purchasing agricultural
conservation easements adjacent to the Sutter and Yolo bypasses to preserve
agriculture and prevent urban land uses.
Sutter Bypass Expansion

Future studies to refine specific project elements related to bypass expansion should
consider increasing the capacity of the Sutter Bypass to convey large flood events.
Expansion would likely require building a new levee for about 15 miles along one
side of the bypass to widen the bypass for increased flow capacity. Although the
required width of the bypass has not been determined, DWR used a 1,000-foot
increase in the bypass width for planning purposes. The evaluations for planning
purposes were initially based on 75 percent of the new width allocated to agricultural
use and 25 percent allocated to habitat restoration.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 313

Modifications to the Colusa and Tisdale weirs and the Butte Basin overflow areas
from the Sacramento River will be considered as part of the expansion. The expan-
sion may require rebuilding some SPFC facilities, such as weirs and pumping
stations.
Yolo Bypass Expansion

Future studies to refine specific project elements related to bypass expansion should
consider the following:
Lengthening and/or lowering the Fremont Weir and incorporating features to
facilitate fish passage through the upper bypass and at the weir.
Increasing capacity in the upper portion of the Yolo Bypass (upstream from
the Sacramento Bypass) by setting back levees and/or purchasing easements.
As described under Section 3.2, evaluate the Cache Creek Settling Basin to
identify a long-term program for managing sediment and mercury to sustain
the flood conveyance capacity of the Yolo Bypass.
Expanding the lower end of the Yolo Bypass upstream from Rio Vista by
setting back levees.
About 42 miles of new levee could potentially be required to expand the

Yolo Bypass.
Sacramento Bypass Expansion

As part of urban elements to reduce flood risks to the Sacramento/West Sacramento
metropolitan area, future studies to refine specific project elements related to bypass
expansion (also described under Section 3.2) will consider the following:
Widening the Sacramento Weir
Automating the weir or eliminating gates
Widening the Sacramento Bypass by constructing about two miles of
new levee
Making operational changes to the Sacramento Weir and Bypass,
as necessary
3.5.2 New Bypasses

Two new bypasses are included in the SSIA. While they would primarily provide
benefits to the urban areas of Yuba City/Marysville and Stockton, they are described
here with other system improvements because of their complexity and long lead
time for construction.
Feather River Bypass

Evaluate the feasibility of constructing a new bypass from the Feather River to the
Butte Basin to further contribute to improving overall urban, small community,
and rural-agricultural flood protection in the planning area. The new bypass would
require construction of about 16 miles of new levee on one side of the Cherokee
Canal. A new bypass would have the potential to reduce flood stages by as much as
PAGE 314 JUNE 2012

one foot at Yuba City and Marysville during a 100-year (1% annual chance) flood. A
new bypass would also provide greater system resiliency in accommodating future
hydrologic changes in the planning area, including those due to climate change, and
would be a relief path when Feather River flows are greater than 200-year (0.5%
annual chance). The State will consider findings of ongoing studies by local entities
when evaluating the potential system benefits of the bypass.
Lower San Joaquin Bypass

Evaluate the construction of a new bypass in the south Delta (expansion of Paradise
Cut and/or other south Delta waterways), primarily for the purpose of reducing peak
flood stages in the Stockton area. A south Delta bypass would include habitat compo-
nents. A gate structure or weir at Paradise Cut will be considered as part of the
project. The new bypass would require construction of about eight miles of new
levee. In combination with the bypass, the State will consider purchasing easements
in the south Delta from willing sellers to provide floodwater storage and reduce peak
flood stages along the San Joaquin River.
3.5.3 Flood System Structures

Several flood system structures will require rehabilitation, rebuilding, or modifica-
tions. These structures are primarily associated with the bypass expansions and new
bypasses described above. Flood structures and related actions include
the following:
Intake structure for the new Feather River Bypass
Upgrade and modification of Colusa and Tisdale weirs
Modifications to bridges to reduce or eliminate flow constrictions
Sacramento Weir widening and automation or elimination of gates
Gate structures and/or weir for new Lower San Joaquin Bypass
Low-level reservoir outlet at New Bullards Bar Dam to facilitate changes in
reservoir operations
Other pumping plants and small weirs, such as those associated with the
Sutter Bypass
In addition, opportunities to expand fish passage at SPFC structures will

be considered.
3.5.4 Flood Storage

Preliminary systemwide analyses have identified potential benefits and opportuni-
ties for reservoir flood storage and operational changes for flood management in the
Sacramento River and San Joaquin river basins.
Flood storage may reduce the need for some types of downstream actions, such as
levee improvements, and can offset the hydraulic effects of system improvements on
downstream reaches. Additional flood storage can also provide greater flexibility in
JUNE 2012 PAGE 315

accommodating future hydrologic changes, including climate change, and provide

greater system resiliency (similar to that provided by freeboard on levees) in the face
of changing downstream conditions.
New Reservoir Storage

The only new surface water storage included in the SSIA is the Folsom Dam Raise,
which is already authorized. During future feasibility studies, the State may consider
partnering with other willing agencies on expanding existing reservoir storage.
Transitory Storage
The SSIA has not identified specific floodplain transitory storage, but may consider
such storage on a willing-seller basis where consistent with local land use plans, all
affected land owners support such storage, and the new flood storage area can be
safely isolated from adjacent areas (easements or fee title).
3.5.5 Conjunctive Use and Groundwater Recharge

Capturing and using floodflows for groundwater recharge has been considered as
a component of integrated flood and water management for the SSIA. Conjunctive
water management through use of floodwater for recharge has been practiced for
many years, especially in the San Joaquin Valley. The State supports programs that
use flood flows for groundwater recharge to improve water management throughout
California. However, the State also recognizes the limitations of direct groundwater
recharge in lowering flood stage and reducing flood risks, especially in the Sacra-
mento River Basin. These limitations are due to inadequate groundwater storage
capacity, except in the American River Basin, and low recharge rates in comparison
with large floodflows. More substantial recharge capacities cannot be achieved with-
out significant investments in off-stream recharge facilities or regional infrastruc-
ture to facilitate in-lieu recharge, such as those North of the American River in the
Sacramento metropolitan area. Consistently, these facilities are developed by local
agencies with emphases on water supply purposes. Considering these limitations,
the SSIA provides opportunities for in-channel groundwater recharge and, although
not recommending any specific recharge projects at this time, encourages exploring
recharge opportunities in the San Joaquin River Basin, especially for capturing a
portion of high flows from snowmelt, where feasible.
3.5.6 Operational Changes

Operational changes to SPFC facilities can benefit both flood risk reduction and the
ecosystem. Initial concepts for operational changes are described below for existing
reservoirs and bypasses.
Coordinated Reservoir Operations

Most major reservoirs in the Central Valley have been designed and built to meet
multiple purposes, including water supply, recreation, and flood control. These
multipurpose reservoirs have defined water conservation space for capturing winter
and spring runoff for water supply purposes, and designated flood control space to
capture, manage floodflows to reduce flood releases downstream.
PAGE 316 JUNE 2012

The Forecast-Coordinated Operations (F-CO) Program seeks to coordinate flood

releases from the reservoirs located in various tributaries of a major river to optimize
the use of downstream channel capacity, the use of total available flood storage space
in the system, and eventually to reduce overall peak floodflows downstream from
these reservoirs. The management process and partnerships, formed during early
development of the F-CO Program, contribute significantly to enhanced coordination
of reservoir operations during flood events.
Implementing Forecast-Based Operations (F-BO) of Central Valley reservoirs is the

next logical step in advancing the F-CO Program. The intended F-BO would involve
the use of improved long-term runoff forecasting and operating within the param-
eters of an existing flood control diagram. Proactive
reservoir management through the use of more flex-
ible flood control diagrams would require extensive
studies of the most feasible diagrams, environmental
documentation for changing reservoir operations,
and Congressional approval for new dynamic flood
control diagrams. The SSIA includes implementa-
tion of both F-CO and F-BO for all reservoirs in the
Central Valley.
As part of early FloodSAFE implementation, opera-

tors at Lake Oroville and New Bullards Bar Res-
ervoir have begun coordinating flood operations to
better manage downstream flows on the Yuba and
Feather rivers. The coordinated operation of New
Bullards Bar Reservoir with Lake Oroville will re- Water Flowing from Sacramento River to Yolo Bypass
quire construction of an outlet to accommodate early Through Sacramento Weir and Bypass
releases of floodflows from New Bullards Bar Dam;
preliminary evaluations indicate that a new outlet with a capacity of about 20,000
cubic feet per second should be considered.
In addition, DWR will consider willing partnerships with other reservoir operators to
accomplish F-BO and overall F-CO program objectives.
Weir and Bypass Operational Changes

The State proposes to investigate modifying the function and operation of weirs that
spill floodwater to the bypasses in the Sacramento River Basin. The concept is to
physically lower crests of overflow weirs and modify operations so that bypasses
carry flows earlier and for longer durations during high river stages. These changes
would reduce river stages and flood risks along main rivers. Depending on timing,
duration, and a host of related hydraulic factors, the more frequently activated flood-
plain in the bypasses would potentially provide a more productive rearing habitat for
juvenile salmonids and other native fish and may provide riparian habitat.
One potential change in operations is for the Sacramento Weir, which is currently
opened when the Sacramento River water surface elevation reaches 27.5 feet at the
I Street Bridge. Evaluation may show that opening the weir when the river stage
JUNE 2012 PAGE 317

reaches 25 feet provides improvements in both flood management and ecosystem

function. Similarly, the crest of the Fremont Weir may be lowered or other modifica-
tions made to provide flow to the Yolo Bypass below its current spill stage. Other
structures that would be subject to assessment and potential operational modifica-
tions include Moulton, Colusa, Tisdale, and Paradise Cut weirs.
Evaluations would also need to consider the extent of potential impacts from more
frequent and longer durations of flooding in the bypasses. For example, some levees
along the bypasses may not be as durable as levees along the main rivers levee
reliability could be lowered by longer duration wetting. Longer duration flooding of
the bypasses would increase the duration of levee patrols. Also, extending the dura-
tion of bypass flooding could interfere with ongoing agricultural practices.
3.5.7 Features to Mitigate Potential Flood Stage Increases

Since future feasibility studies are needed to refine the SSIA, the ultimate configura-
tion of facilities will likely vary from those presented in the SSIA. Only at that time
will the State know the potential magnitude and extent of hydraulic impacts from
planned improvements, if any, within the system. Cost estimates for the SSIA
include an allowance for features to mitigate significant hydraulic impacts caused by
project implementation.
A number of mitigation features may be used, depending on the hydraulic impacts

throughout the system and downstream from SPFC facilities. Mitigation features
may include the following:
Levee enhancements for affected areas
New surface storage partnerships with willing reservoir operators
New transitory storage
Modification of project designs to limit stage increases
Other features that appear promising during feasibility studies
3.6 Non-State Plan of Flood Control Levees

Approximately 420 miles of private non-SPFC levees are closely associated with
SPFC levees. Non-SPFC levees are those (1) that abut SPFC levees, (2) whose per-
formance may affect the performance of SPFC levees, or (3) that provide flood risk
reduction benefits to areas also being protected by SPFC features.
3.6.1 Non-State Plan of Flood Control Urban Levees

A total of about 120 miles of non-SPFC urban levees work in conjunction with
SPFC levees to provide protection to urban areas within the SPFC Planning Area.
Table 3-3 shows the distribution of non-SPFC levees for the various urban areas.
Figure 3-3 shows the locations of these non-SPFC urban levees.
To achieve 200-year (0.5% annual chance) flood protection, improvements to both

SPFC and non-SPFC levees will be needed. DWR has estimated that improving
these non-SPFC urban levees to achieve this level of protection would cost approxi-
mately $1.2 billion in 2011 dollars. This cost is included in the SSIA costs.
PAGE 318 JUNE 2012

Table 3-3. Non-State Plan of Flood Control Urban Levees

NON-SPFC LEVEES
URBAN AREA
(miles)
Chico 0
Yuba City 0
Marysville 0
Sacramento 24
West Sacramento 30
Woodland 1
Davis 0
Stockton 65
Merced 0
Total 120
Key:
The State recognizes that for an urban area protected jointly by both SPFC and
non-SPFC levees, the legislated requirement for an urban level of flood protection
(200-year or 0.5% annual chance flood) requires improvement to both types of facili-
ties. The Board may choose to treat some or all these non-SPFC levees in a similar
manner to SPFC urban levees for State participation in levee improvements, and po-
tentially add them to the SPFC. Alternatively, if the Board chooses not to add these
levees to the SPFC, the State will consider participation in improvements to these
levees under other State programs.
In addition, completed and ongoing Early Implementation Projects initiated since

bond funding became available in 2007 will likely be added to the SPFC when final
documentation is complete.
3.6.2 Non-SPFC Nonurban Levees

About 300 miles of non-SPFC nonurban levees work in conjunction with SPFC
levees in rural areas. Most of these levees are along the upper San Joaquin River.
Figure 3-3 shows the locations of non-SPFC nonurban levees that protect portions of
the SPFC Planning Area. Non-SPFC Delta levees are not included since they do not
protect the SPFC Planning Area.
Improving these levees to the same level as SPFC rural levees would cost about
$300 million. This cost is not included in the costs for the SSIA. Portions of these
non-SPFC nonurban levees may be candidates for being added to the SPFC after
preparation of regional plans and feasibility studies (see Section 4), but DWR has
not included them as part of the SSIA.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 319

Figure 3-3. Non-State Plan of Flood Control Levees Protecting Portions of State Plan of Flood Control
Planning Area
PAGE 320 JUNE 2012
3.7 Integrating Ecosystem Restoration

Opportunities with Flood Risk
Reduction Projects
While flood risk reduction (public safety) remains the primary
CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION
goal of the CVFPP, early integration of other important re-
ACT OF 2008
source management goals into the plan formulation process
remains a premise of integrated flood management. Those California Water Code Section 9614.
supporting goals, along with the legislative objectives, are
described in Section 1.6.2. This will help improve overall flood
project delivery and may broaden public support for flood proj- (j) A description of structural and
ects. nonstructural means for enabling or
improving Systemwide riverine ecosys-
In taking an integrated flood management approach, the in- tem function, including, but not limited
tent of the SSIA is to make progress on improving ecological to, establishment of riparian habitat and
conditions on a systemwide basis, using integrated policies, seasonal inundation of available flood
programs, and projects. This approach builds upon and ad- plains where feasible.
vances on-going efforts and successes to incorporate environ- California Water Code Section 9616.
mental benefits into flood management projects. Integrating The Plan shall meetmultiple objec-
environmental stewardship early into policy and project plan- tivesincluding
ning, development, and implementation will help move beyond
(7) Promote natural dynamic hydrologic
traditional project-by-project compensatory mitigation. This
and geomorphic processes.
approach also creates the opportunity to develop flood manage-
ment projects that may be more sustainable and cost-effective, (9) Increase and improve the quantity,
and can provide ecological benefits while protecting public diversity, and connectivity of riparian,
safety. Under the SSIA, ecosystem restoration opportunities wetland, flood plain, and shaded riverine
are integral parts of system improvements, as well as urban, aquatic habitats, including the agricul-
small community, and rural-agricultural area flood protection tural and ecological values of these
projects. lands.
(11) Promote the recovery and stability
Attachment 2 to the CVFPP, the Conservation Framework, of native species populations and overall
provides a preview of a long-term Central Valley Flood Sys- biotic community diversity.
tem Conservation Strategy (Conservation Strategy) that DWR
is developing to support the 2017 update of the CVFPP. The
Conservation Framework focuses on promoting ecosystem
functions and multi-benefit projects in the context of integrated flood management
for near-term implementation. The Conservation Framework provides an overview
of the floodway ecosystem conditions and trends and key conservation goals that
further clarify the CVFPPs ecosystem goal. The Conservation Framework also
identifies opportunities for integrated flood management projects that can, in addi-
tion to improving public safety, enhance riparian habitats, provide connectivity of
habitats, restore riparian corridors, improve fish passage, and reconnect the river and
floodplain.
The long-term Conservation Strategy will be consistent with the Conservation

Framework and provide a comprehensive, long-term approach for the State to
achieve the objectives of the Central Valley Flood Protection Act and the
JUNE 2012 PAGE 321

FloodSAFE and CVFPP goals. Flood protection projects that are integrated with
environmental restoration components have the potential to increase federal and
State cost-sharing for flood management projects and make improvements more
affordable for local entities.
Consistent with the Conservation Framework, ecosystem restoration and enhance-

ment opportunities of the SSIA include the following:
Regional improvements (urban, small community, and rural-
agricultural areas) Flood protection projects will preserve important
shaded riparian aquatic habitat along riverbanks and help restore the regional
continuity/connectivity of such habitats. Planning and designs for flood risk
reduction projects will consider opportunities to enhance ecosystem
functions.
System improvements DWR, through its multiple programs, will continue
to work on integrated flood management projects within the Systemwide
Planning Area, and will evaluate and initiate other projects that benefit the
SPFC. Sutter and Yolo bypass expansions (described previously) may
increase the overall area of floodplain that would support wetland habitats.
Fish passage improvements Improve fish passage at SPFC weirs,
bypasses, and other flood management facilities undergoing modification or
rehabilitation to improve access to upstream aquatic habitat and facilitate
natural flow routing. Possible candidates for fish passage improvements
include the following:
Big Chico Creek system
Tisdale and Colusa weirs
Cache Creek Settling Basin
Fremont Weir
Yolo Bypass
Willow Slough Weir in Yolo Bypass
Sacramento Weir
Sand Slough Control Structure
DWRs goal in integrating ecosystem restoration and enhancement is to achieve
overall habitat improvement, thereby reducing, or eliminating the need to mitigate
for most ecosystem impacts. However, depending on the timing of improvements
and implementation, some ecosystem mitigation may be required.
3.8 Climate Change Adaption Strategy

As mentioned in Section 1, climate change is likely to generate more extreme floods
in the future. Development of flood hydrology that accounts for the potential effects
of climate change is a complicated and time-consuming exercise that must account
for many uncertainties. DWR, in partnership with the USACE, is in the process
of developing new hydrology that includes the effects of climate change, but that
hydrology will not be ready for use in system evaluation until late 2012. Therefore,
PAGE 322 JUNE 2012

the new hydrology will be most useful in technical evaluations

CLIMATE CHANGE
leading to the 2017 update of the CVFPP.
Climate change impacts for extreme
Even though climate change hydrology was not yet available,
events, such as flooding and droughts, will
development of the SSIA included allowances for potentially
result not from changes in averages, but
higher flows due to climate change. Providing wider bypasses
from changes in local extremes. DWR initi-
to lower floodwater surface elevations would increase flow-
carrying capacity and flexibility to deal with higher flood flows ated a study to investigate a new approach
that may occur because of climate change. Changes in reservoir to assessing impacts based on climate
operations from F-CO and F-BO can provide flexibility and change indices more suitable for flood
adaptability to changes in extreme flood events. In addition, events Atmospheric Rivers.
the SSIA includes the potential for the State to participate with Preliminary findings are promising for:
others in reservoir expansion projects and in obtaining rights for Assessing climate change impacts on flood
floodplain transitory storage from willing landowners. These management and to communities receiving
flood protection
and other strategies to address the effects of climate change will
be further evaluated for the 2017 update of the CVFPP. Identifying prudent system improvements
that are resilient in climate change
The effects of sea level rise are important in the Sacramento- conditions
San Joaquin Delta, portions of which are protected by SPFC DWR intends to continue methodology
facilities. Sea level rise will affect levees within the Delta and
development and application for the 2017
for some distance upstream along the rivers. The estimated
CVFPP Update.
average sea level rise is currently under the review of the
National Research Council. For the 2012 CVFPP, high tide
conditions during the 1997 flood were used as the boundary conditions for hydrau-
lic analysis and could be considered an initial, surrogate condition under climate
change. This tide was about two feet higher than would normally be expected on the
basis of solar and lunar gravitational forces that create tides. DWR will continue to
coordinate with other DWR programs, Delta Stewardship Councils Delta Plan, and
ongoing USACE feasibility studies to collectively address how sea level rise could
contribute to potential estuary flooding in the Delta.
For the 2017 CVFPP update, improved sea level rise information will be used. DWR
will develop approaches for addressing sea level rise that may vary depending on the
expected range and rate of sea level rise. For example, these approaches may vary
from abandoning some facilities to raising and strengthening affected levees. Some
affected areas may be transformed to ecosystem uses. Other management approaches
may be considered, as supported by technical analysis during the preparation of
regional plans and feasibility studies.
DWR is developing a new methodology for estimating the impacts of climate change
on flood hydrology. Typical climate change impact assessments for long-term water
supply needs consider likely changes in average temperature and precipitation. How-
ever, climate change impacts on extreme events, such as floods, will not result from
changes in averages, but from changes in local extremes. Therefore, DWR
collaborated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Geological Survey, USACE, and Reclamation in developing a new methodology
based on the intensity of Atmospheric Rivers, which are fast-moving, concentrated
streams of water vapor that can release heavy rains. Since the moisture source of
JUNE 2012 PAGE 323

water vapors is often the ocean southwest of the Hawaiian Islands, these storm
events are often referred to as Pineapple Expresses.
Since available climate change information does not present probabilistic character-
istics, DWR is working on the concept of prudent decision making that focuses on
investments that could accommodate a broader range of climate change scenarios
rather than optimizing investments within a few selective scenarios. The resulting
Threshold Analysis Approach was applied to the Yuba-Feather system in a proof-of-
concept pilot study. The results of the pilot study suggest that under the F-CO, New
Bullards Bar Dam on the Yuba River has inadequate capacity to help respond to
climate change, as compared to Oroville Dam on the Feather River, because of lim-
ited regulating capacities. This information provides guidance for the overall invest-
ment strategy for modifications such as enlarged outlets at New Bullards Bar Dam.
DWR intends to fully develop the Threshold Analysis Approach for the 2017 Update
with new Central Valley hydrology and improved Atmospheric River indices.
In summary, improved climate change information will allow more detailed evalua-
tion of potential climate change impacts on the SPFC and refinement of approaches
to manage higher floodflows and sea levels during preparation of regional plans and
feasibility studies.
3.9 Considerations for

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Land uses in the Delta outside the SPFC Planning Area are primarily rural and
dominated by agriculture and open space, with several dispersed small communi-
ties. Flood management facilities primarily include levees, which often protect lands
at or below sea level. Flood management responsibilities in Delta areas outside the
SPFC Planning Area reside with a variety of local agencies, supported by the States
Delta Special Flood Projects Program and Delta Levees Maintenance Subventions
Program.
Restoration of ecosystem functions and aquatic habitats in the Delta have been, and
continue to be, the focus of various State, federal, and local efforts, in addition to
water supply and flood management planning. Major efforts include the Delta Stew-
ardship Councils Delta Plan, the Delta Protection Commissions Economic Sustain-
ability Plan, the Bay Delta Conservation Plan, and the Delta Habitat Conservation
and Conveyance Program.
The CVFPP supports a financially and environmentally sustainable Delta. Depend-

ing on which elements of the SSIA are eventually implemented in upstream regions,
there is a potential for hydraulic impacts in the Delta. The SSIA includes manage-
ment actions (see Section 3.5.7), and a cost allowance, to lessen or mitigate these
impacts compared with current conditions.
The State will continue to support Delta flood management improvements outside
the SPFC Planning Area through existing programs and in coordination with ongo-
ing multiagency Delta planning efforts. Existing programs include the Statewide
PAGE 324 JUNE 2012

Flood Management Planning Program, Delta Levees Maintenance Subventions

Program, Delta Special Flood Control Projects program, emergency planning and re-
sponse support, and other residual risk management programs and support provided
by the State.
3.10 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Levee Vegetation Policy and
Public Law 84-99 Eligibility
The USACE levee vegetation management policy affects implementation of the
SSIA and its ability to maintain eligibility for federal Public Law 84-99 rehabili-
tation assistance in the event of flooding. The following provides context for the
USACE policy and the States resultant levee vegetation management strategy
described in Section 4. A more detailed description of the levee vegetation manage-
ment issue can be found in Attachment 2 Conservation Framework.
3.10.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Levee Vegetation Policy
In April 2007, USACE released a draft white paper, Treatment of Vegetation within
Local Flood Damage Reduction Systems, which clarified its nationwide policy
regarding the removal of wild growth, trees, and other encroachments as a prereq-
uisite for Public Law 84-99 eligibility. The USACE policy requires removal of all
woody vegetation from levee slopes and toe areas. This policy is not consistent with
the USACE vegetation variance letter dated August 3, 1949, which revised the
Standard O&M Agreement to include the following text: Brush and small trees may
be retained on the waterward slope where desirable for the prevention of erosion and
wave wash. Where practicable, measures shall be taken to retard bank erosion by the
planting of willows or other suitable growth on areas riverward of the levees. The
2007 policy is also not consistent with the long-standing USACE practice of protect-
ing trees while performing levee repairs on Central Valley levees, and requiring new
tree planting in its levee designs, where feasible.
USACE has proposed the new levee vegetation policy to improve levee integrity and
reduce flood risk. The Flood Control System Status Report includes DWRs assess-
ment of the safety risks associated with trees and shrubs on, and adjacent to, levees.
The report concludes that properly trimmed and spaced levee vegetation poses a low
threat to levee integrity in comparison with other risk factors, and can help stabilize
soils and reduce nearshore flow velocities. DWR does not believe that the presence
of properly maintained woody vegetation on legacy levees constitutes a degree of
risk that necessarily requires removing vegetation or constructing engineered works
to address the perceived risk. Instead, DWR believes such legacy levee vegetation
needs to be considered in a balanced recognition of its role to the ecosystem and to
the levees integrity.
A preliminary assessment by DWR has also concluded that the complete removal of
existing woody vegetation along the 1,600-mile legacy Central Valley levee system
would be enormously expensive, would divert investments away from more critical
JUNE 2012 PAGE 325

threats to levee integrity, and would be environmentally devastating. Recent

USACE research regarding the risks associated with trees on levees found that trees
can slightly increase or decrease levee safety, depending on their location on the
levee slope. While concluding that more research is needed, the research did not
characterize levee vegetation as a major risk factor.
In the spirit of cooperation, DWR, USACE, local maintaining agencies, and key
federal and State resources agencies, have been engaged in California Levees
Roundtable discussions since August 2007. Early discussions regarding ways to
address USACEs levee vegetation policy led to the Californias Central Valley
Flood System Improvement Framework (Framework Agree-
ment), dated February 27, 2009. The Framework Agreement
allows Central Valley levees to retain acceptable mainte-
nance ratings and Public Law 84-99 rehabilitation eligibility
as long as levee trees and shrubs are properly trimmed and
spaced to allow for visibility, inspection vehicles, and flood-
fight access. The Framework Agreement states that the
eligibility criteria will be reconsidered based on the contents
of the CVFPP.
While the California Levees Roundtable discussions were

underway, USACE issued Engineering Technical Letter
(ETL) 1110-2-571, which finalized its Guidelines for Land-
scape Planting and Vegetation Management at Levees,
Floodwalls, Embankment Dams, and Appurtenant Struc-
tures (April 10, 2009). These guidelines essentially estab-
lished a woody vegetation-free zone on all levees and the
adjoining ground within 15 feet of the levee on both sides,
and are at odds with DWRs independent assessment
described above. As an implementation directive for the
ETL, USACE subsequently issued a draft Policy Guidance
Letter (PGL), Variance from Vegetation Standards for
Levees and Floodwalls (February 9, 2010). Congress,
Erosion along the Sacramento River through the Water Resources Development Act of 1996,
Section 202 (g), had mandated that USACE address regional
variations in levee management and resource needs but the February 2010 draft
PGL did not address regional variations.
Before and following release of the draft PGL, DWR has recommended that USACE
formulate a variance process that is workable on a systemwide scale, such as might
be required for the Central Valley flood management system. DWR has recommend-
ed that such a variance process should allow for consideration of the geotechnical,
hydraulic, environmental, and economic factors that DWR believes are important
in formulating and prioritizing levee repairs and improvements. Because the Febru-
ary 2010 draft PGL was not workable from DWRs perspective, in May 2011, DWR
proposed an alternative variance procedure for USACE consideration. Although
USACE has stated their procedural inability to work individually with California (or
collectively with several non-federal entities) to collaboratively develop a variance
policy that recognizes and accommodates regional differences, DWR remains hope-
PAGE 326 JUNE 2012

ful that USACE will issue a final vegetation variance PGL that will complement and
be consistent with the CVFPP.
It is important to note that the large-scale removal of levee vegetation runs at odds
with State and federal environmental requirements. State and federal resource
agencies find that the ETL itself, and the potential impacts of widespread vegetation
removal due to strict enforcement of that regulation, pose a major threat to fish and
wildlife species, including protected species, and to their recovery. Similarly, local
agencies are concerned about negative impacts to public safety from ETL compli-
ance due to redirection of limited financial resources to lower priority risks. For this
reason, widespread vegetation removal is unlikely to be a feasible management
action for many of Californias levees.
A further complication is the question of shared responsibility for activities to

address woody vegetation. The USACE ETL and associated February 2010 draft
PGL do not recognize that legacy levee vegetation exists for a wide variety of
reasons (in many cases, because USACE itself placed the vegetation or encouraged
its placement or retention), and instead treats all legacy levee vegetation as if it were
deferred maintenance and solely a nonfederal responsibility. Consequently,
USACE asserts through the ETL and draft PGL that all of the administrative and
financial burdens for ETL compliance, or for obtaining a variance, should be placed
on its nonfederal partners. The State continues to encourage USACE to accept
shared responsibility for addressing levee vegetation issues, as appropriate which
would also facilitate USACE plan formulation as a partner in cost-shared flood risk
reduction projects.
It is important to note that DWRs purpose in advocating for shared responsibility

is not to commit federal funds toward the enormous cost of removing vegetation
to achieve ETL compliance. Rather, DWR is advocating that such inordinate costs
be avoided by having USACE partner with DWR and local agencies in addressing
legacy levee vegetation issues, jointly considering the environmental and risk reduc-
tion implications of vegetation remediation within the context of prudent expenditure
of limited public funds. DWR will continue to confer with USACE on plan formula-
tion concepts that recognize shared responsibility for addressing vegetation issues
(in parallel with traditional levee risk factors) within a systemwide risk-informed
context that is intended to enable critical cost-shared flood system improvements to
move forward.
A critical limitation of the USACE ETL is that it is written strictly in terms of new
levee construction. It does not recognize and address the unique engineering and
environmental attributes presented by well-established legacy vegetation as an
integral aspect of many SPFC levees. While the CVFPP proposes to adhere to
USACE vegetation policy for new levee construction, compatibility of the CVFPP
levee vegetation management strategy with implementation of USACE national
vegetation policy for legacy levee vegetation needs flexibility to recognize and
accommodate regional differences which could be achieved through a collabora-
tively developed variance policy that provides such regional flexibility.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 327

3.10.2 Economics of Public Law 84-99 Eligibility for

Rural-Agricultural Levees
Noncompliance with USACE vegetation policy may result in Public Law 84-99
ineligibility for rural-agricultural levees. However, compliance with the policy is
costly and generally is not affordable for rural-agricultural maintaining agencies,
nor is it practicable. Although the Public Law 84-99 Rehabilitation and Inspection
Program can be helpful to nonfederal sponsors in rehabilitating damaged levees after
a flood, its usefulness is limited in the Central Valley for the following reasons:
Funding for Public Law 84-99 rehabilitation assistance is generally very
limited. Public Law 84-99 rehabilitation assistance for significant damage
repairs usually requires a special appropriation by Congress.
There is no mechanism to obtain reimbursement or credit when a nonfederal
sponsor performs the repairs, or pays USACE to perform the repairs.
Increasingly stringent USACE maintenance requirements, especially for
encroachments and vegetation, can be difficult to meet and are unaffordable.
Rehabilitation projects need to be economically justified with a benefit-to-
cost ratio of 1.0 or greater to justify federal involvement. In rural-agricultural
areas of the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins, this requirement can
be difficult to achieve.
From a nonfederal perspective, the most critical concerns about implementing the
USACE vegetation policy are the environmental impacts, the cost to comply with
the policy, and the misallocation of scarce public funds for system improvement.
Based on USACE expenditures under Public Law 84-99 for declared flood events
in 1995, 1997, 1998, and 2006, the preliminary estimate of annualized assistance
of levee rehabilitation is approximately $30 million. This estimate is significantly
influenced by the $120 million in assistance provided by USACE following the 1997
flood event an amount not likely to be duplicated based on subsequent changes in
USACE policy, such as their levee vegetation policy.
In April 2010, DWR developed a Fiscal Impact Report of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Vegetation Management Standards and Vegetation Variance Policy
for Levees and Flood Walls. This report includes the cost estimates of applying the
ETL to the 116 critical levee repairs performed from 2006 through 2008 and the cost
estimate of applying the ETL to the entire 1,600 miles of project levee system by
extrapolation. The estimated order of magnitude cost to comply with the USACE
policy ranged from $6.5 billion to $7.5 billion. Annualizing this cost of compliance
(over a 50-year project life at 6 percent) would yield an annual cost of over $400
million, more than ten times the $30 million annual assistance estimated above.
Therefore, the State interest is to follow the vegetation management strategy

presented in Section 4. The local maintaining agencies may choose to comply with
the USACE vegetation policy to maintain Public Law 84-99 eligibility; however,
it would be very challenging for rural-agricultural maintaining agencies because of
cost of compliance for eligibility. This is evident by the results of fall 2011 USACE
periodic inspections, 39 of 116 local maintaining agencies have lost eligibility for
PAGE 328 JUNE 2012

Public Law 84-99 rehabilitation assistance for reasons other than vegetation. In
addition, removal of levee systems from active status under Public Law 84-99
based on noncompliant vegetation would be unfortunate and unnecessary. USACE
Engineering Regulation 500-1-1 protects the federal government from bearing any of
the cost of any levee rehabilitation work associated with deferred or deficient main-
tenance. Thus, to protect the federal investment in SPFC levees, USACE would
be justified in retaining active status for SPFC levee systems with noncompliant
vegetation, assigning to the nonfederal partner any rehabilitation costs attributable to
such vegetation.
3.11 Residual Risk Management

As elements of the SSIA are constructed over time, residual flood risk within the
Central Valley should decrease. However, the potential for flooding in the Central
Valley will always pose risks to life and property, particularly in areas of deep or
rapid flooding. Table 3-4 illustrates estimated residual risk management needs for the
SSIA. These can be compared with the residual risk needs estimated for the prelimi-
nary approaches in Table 2-2.
Table 3-4. Residual Risk Management for State Systemwide Investment Approach
FLOOD MANAGEMENT PROJECT LOCATION OR INCLUDED IN SSIA

ELEMENT REQUIRED COMPONENTS IMPLEMENTATION
All-weather roads on levee crown YES
Flood information collection and sharing YES
Enhanced Flood
Local flood emergency response planning YES
Emergency Response
Forecasting and notification YES
Rural post-flood recovery assistance program YES

(small)
Identify and repair after-event erosion YES
Enhanced Operations Developing and implementing enhanced O&M programs and

YES
and Maintenance regional O&M organizations
Sacramento channel and levee management, and bank protection YES
Raising and waterproofing structures and building berms YES

(large)
Purchasing and relocating homes in floodplains YES

(large)
Floodplain Management
Land use and floodplain management YES
Agricultural conservation easements YES
Key:
Large = relatively high level of work to implement
Small = relatively low level of work to implement
SSIA = State Systemwide Investment Approach
JUNE 2012 PAGE 329

Consequently, investments in residual risk management must continue, both during

and after implementation of the SSIA. Policies and programs related to residual risk
management are described in more detail in Section 4.
3.12 Estimated Cost of State Systemwide

Investment Approach
Table 3-5 summarizes the preliminary estimate of costs for the SSIA, assuming all
elements are ultimately completed. Estimates include costs for capital improvements
and 25 years of ongoing annual work to maintain the system. Estimated costs are
in 2011 dollars. Actual costs will vary from those in
Table 3-5 because of a wide range of factors, includ-
STATE INVESTMENTS IN STATE PLAN OF ing project justification by feasibility studies, project
FLOOD CONTROL FLOOD MANAGEMENT, 2007 2011 configuration, implementation time, future economic
and contractor bidding conditions, and many others.
Flood Emergency Response
Emergency exercises Specific project features ultimately implemented for
New water gaging
the SSIA will depend on a host of factors. These
factors include detailed project feasibility studies;
Forecast-Coordinated Operations for Yuba/Feather designs and costs; environmental benefits and im-
Rock stockpiles in the Delta pacts; interaction with other local projects and
system improvements; local, federal, and State
Operations and Maintenance agency participation in project implementation; and
Over 220 levee sites repaired changing physical, institutional, and economic
Sediment removal from bypasses conditions.
Rehabilitation of 7 flood structures The table also includes SPFC flood management in-
vestments that have already been expended or com-
Floodplain Management
mitted during the 2007 to 2011 period. Since passage
Approved building code amendment for single-family
of the 2007 flood legislation directing preparation of
residential occupancy
the CVFPP, the State has made substantial progress
300,000 flood risk notifications annually, since 2009 in reducing flood risks within the Central Valley by
Mapping of Central Valley Levee Flood Protection Zones investing bond funds from Propositions 84 and 1E.
These efforts encompass urban levee improvements,
Capital Improvements emergency repair projects, physical and operational
15 ongoing or completed projects changes to flood management reservoirs, emergency
response planning, and improvements to operations
Assessments and Engineering and maintenance, emergency response, and flood-
9,000 square miles of topographic data plain management. These accomplishments over
Urban and nonurban levee evaluations the past five years represent significant progress in
State Plan of Flood Control Descriptive Document
achieving the CVFPP Goals.
Flood Control System Status Report The estimated amounts in Table 3-5 are total
CVFPP development combined investments for State, federal, and
local agencies. Section 4 provides further detail on
Coordination with USACE on many ongoing evaluations
cost-sharing proportions, and expenditures prior to
Ecosystem adoption of the CVFPP. Consistent with traditional
See Section 4 for ecosystem accomplishments
cost-sharing for flood management projects, DWR
PAGE 330 JUNE 2012

Table 3-5. Estimated Costs of State Systemwide Investment Approach ($ millions)
SYSTEM URBAN RURAL-AGRICULTURAL RESIDUAL RISK TOTAL COST

REGION IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS MANAGEMENT
Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High
1 Upper Sacramento $109 - $180 $120 - $144 $154 - $168 $95 - $114 $480 - $610
2 Mid-Sacramento $234 - $340 $0 - $0 $360 - $379 $261 - $333 $860 - $1,050
3 Feather River $1,695 - $2,139 $891 - $1,048 $282 - $289 $170 - $212 $3,040 - $3,690
4 Lower Sacramento $1,627 - $1,962 $3,549 - $4,283 $77 - $88 $138 - $169 $5,390 - $6,500
5 Delta North 1 $754 - $924 $144 - $192 $604 - $634 $266 - $311 $1,770 - $2,060
6 Delta South 1 $427 - $549 $0 - $0 $47 - $52 $110 - $135 $580 - $740
7 Lower San Joaquin $7 - $8 $626 - $809 $17 - $19 $82 - $97 $730 - $930
8 Mid-San Joaquin $60 - $102 $0 - $0 $48 - $55 $81 - $96 $190 - $250
9 Upper San Joaquin $229 - $297 $166 - $199 $183 - $189 $308 - $396 $890 - $1,080
TOTAL $5,140 to $6,500 $5,500 to $6,680 $1,770 to $1,870 $1,510 to $1,860 $13,920 to $16,910
Notes:
1
SPFC Facility costs only
Costs in $ millions. All estimates in 2011 dollars.
Key:
JUNE 2012
PAGE 331
estimates that the States share of costs included in Table 3-5 will be $6,400
million to $7,700 million, including already expended or committed investments, if
all elements of the SSIA are ultimately constructed. Section 4 also shows cost
estimates over a more certain time period of 10 years that will allow near-term
projects to be constructed as longer term projects are under additional evaluation.
3.13 Performance of State Systemwide

Investment Approach
Based on the evaluations, the SSIA could effectively improve management of flood
risk for urban, small community, and rural-agricultural areas given differing popu-
lation, assets at risk, and other State interests. The SSIA reflects a cost-justifiable
approach to effectively meet the legislation requirements and the CVFPP Goals, and
provides a road-map for more detailed studies and designs leading to site-specific
capital improvements.
The following sections summarize the additional performance benefits that could be
achieved through implementing the SSIA. The following sections compare the per-
formance of the SSIA to current conditions for several key parameters: changes in
flood stage, sustainability, contributions to the CVFPP Goals, and relative efficiency.
For analysis purposes, the current or No Project condition represents conditions con-
sistent with the Notice of Preparation for the PEIR. It is also important to note that
Early Implementation Projects and other FloodSAFE initiatives implemented since
bond funding became available in 2007, which are considered part of the SSIA, have
already provided benefits.
3.13.1 Stage Changes

Figures 3-4 and 3-5 illustrate performance of the SSIA with
STATE SYSTEMWIDE INVESTMENT respect to systemwide peak floodwater surface elevations
APPROACH STAGE PERFORMANCE (stages) compared to current conditions. In most areas along
the rivers in the Sacramento River Basin, stages are lower than
Although peak floodflows may increase
current conditions because of the proposed bypass expansions.
locally (over current conditions) in certain
Flood stages in the San Joaquin River Basin would not change
reaches, expansion of conveyance
much with respect current conditions because large bypass
capacity proposed by the SSIA would
expansions were not included, except near the Delta. Flood
result in reduced peak flood stages stages entering the Delta may be higher by a few tenths of a
throughout the system. foot. If stage changes result in significant hydraulic impacts,
features to mitigate the impacts may be used.
Sequencing improvements along the river corridors may cause temporary water
stage impacts and or hydraulic impacts. Sequencing improvements from down-
stream to upstream may eliminate these temporary impacts, but may not be practical
considering the wide range of improvements that need to be made.
PAGE 332 JUNE 2012

Sacramento River
at Ord Ferry
ect
j
Pro
IA
No
SS
Peak Flow Water Surface
(1,000 cfs) Elevation (ft)
2% 114.6 114.6
1% 115.2 115.2
.5% 116.1 116.1
2% 111 111
1% 111 111
.5% 111 111
Feather River
at Yuba City
t
jec
Pro
IA
No
SS
2% 70.3 69.4
1% 70.6 69.6
.5% 72.8 71.8
2% 156 134 Sacramento River

at I Street
1% 165 143
t
.5% 174 152
jec
Pro
IA
No
SS
Yolo Bypass downstream (1,000 cfs) Elevation (ft) 2% 30.7 30.5
from Fremont Weir 1% 31.3 31.2
.5% 33.0 32.4
t
jec
Pro
2% 126 123
IA
No
SS
1% 132 127
35.7
2% 36.7 .5% 154 151

1% 37.8 36.9
.5% 39.1 37.9
2% 322 339
1% 369 390
Sacramento River
.5% 428 442 at Rio Vista
t
jec
Pro
IA
No
SS
2% 9.1 9.1
1% 9.6 9.3
.5% 9.8 9.6
2% 462 465
1% 500 476
.5% 514 510
Note: Figure presents peak flow and water surface elevation estimates for various frequency flood events (represented as percent chance exceedence, e.g., 1%)
Location of peak
at selected flow locations
monitoring and water surface
in the elevation
Sacramento estimates
River Basin. for 100-Year storm event at selected monitoring locations in the Sacramento River Basin.
Key: cfs = cubic feet per second ft = feet SSIA = State Systemwide Investment Approach
Figure 3-4. Changes in Peak Floodflows and Stages No Project Versus State Systemwide Investment
Approach for Various Storm Events Sacramento River Basin
JUNE 2012 PAGE 333

San Joaquin River

at Vernalis
ject
Pro
IA
No
SS
2% 32.9 32.8
1% 34.6 34.5
.5% 39.0 39.0
2% 49 49
1% 59 60
.5% 94 93
San Joaquin River

at Newman
t
jec
Pro
IA
San Joaquin River

No
SS
at Firebaugh
64.9 64.9
2%
1% 65.6 65.6
t
jec
.5% 66.3 66.3

Pro
IA
No
SS
2% 26 26
31 31 2% 140.4 140.4
1%
1% 141.4 141.4
.5% 37 37
.5% 142.3 142.3
2% 6.0 6.0
1% 7.2 7.2
.5% 8.3 8.3
Note: Figure presents peak flow and water surface elevation estimates for various frequency flood events (represented as percent chance exceedence, e.g., 1%)
Location
at selectedofmonitoring
Peak Flow and Water
locations in theSurface Elevation
San Joaquin River Estimates
Basin. for 100-Year Storm Event at selected monitoring locations in the San Joaquin River Basin.
Key: cfs = cubic feet per second ft = feet SSIA = State Systemwide Investment Approach
Figure 3-5. Changes in Peak Floodflows and Stages No Project Versus State Systemwide Investment
Approach for Various Storm Events San Joaquin River Basin
PAGE 334 JUNE 2012

3.13.2 Sustainability
Table 3-6 summarizes the financial, environmental, and social sustainability aspects
of the SSIA compared with current conditions.
Table 3-6. Summary of State Systemwide Investment Approach Sustainability Compared with No Project
NO PROJECT STATE SYSTEMWIDE INVESTMENT APPROACH
Overall
Low Medium
Sustainability
Very high ongoing and
Financial Very high upfront and lower long-term annual costs.
long-term annual costs
Limited opportunities to
improve habitat connectivity, Enhanced opportunities to improve habitat connectivity,
Environmental
quality, quantity, and quality, quantity, and biodiversity.
biodiversity
Seeks flood protection comparable with assets being protect-
Varied level of protection ed. Limits cumulative growth of flood risks to States people
throughout the system and infrastructure due to system improvements. Reduces reli-
Social Significant potential for ance on compensatory mitigation for project implementation
public safety and economic and regular operations and maintenance due to implementation
consequences of flooding of systemwide conservation strategy. Rebalances institutional
arrangement for operations and maintenance responsibilities.
Climate Change Low system resiliency (ability Conveyance improves flood system resiliency by lowering
Adaptability to adapt) stages, which improves ability to adapt to climate change.
Key:
3.13.3 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan Goals

Table 3-7 summarizes contributions of the SSIA to the five CVFPP Goals,
compared with No Project.
3.13.4 Relative Efficiency

DWR prepared a qualitative comparison to show broad differences in potential
performance of the preliminary approaches and the SSIA. Figure 3-6 shows these
qualitative comparisons of performance for the SSIA with the three preliminary
approaches. These comparisons are the same as shown in Figure 2-6, but with the
addition of the SSIA.
Another view of the relative performance of the three preliminary approaches and
SSIA is shown in Figure 3-7. The figure shows preliminary cost estimates and
estimated performance in terms of the relative contributions of each approach to the
primary and supporting goals of the CVFPP.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 335

Table 3-7. Summary of Contributions of State Systemwide Investment Approach to Central Valley Flood Protection Plan
Goals Compared with No Project
GOAL OR METRIC NO PROJECT STATE SYSTEMWIDE INVESTMENT APPROACH
Contributions to Primary Goal Improve Flood Risk Management

Level of Flood Varies throughout system Overall higher protection consistent with
Protection Most urban areas do not have assets being protected
200-year level of flood protection Urban areas achieve protection from a 200-year
Protection to rural-agricultural areas flood, and for small communities achieve
and small communities varies widely protection from a 100-year flood
Overall increased levels of flood protection
throughout the system reflecting improved
capacity to manage flood peaks
Life Safety Varies throughout system Improvement varies
(focused on Public safety threat is high for many Substantial improvement in urban areas
populations at communities, particularly those in Improvement in small communities varies
risk) deep floodplains
Economic $329 million in expected annual Reduction of 66 percent in expected annual

Damages damages damages
Economic damages, particularly in Substantial reduction in damages in urban
urban areas, are very high areas, small communities, and rural areas
Improve Operations Very high current costs Decrease in long-term O&M requirements
and Maintenance Ongoing and long-term O&M costs Decrease in long-term costs due to O&M
are very high relative to other reforms (clarified roles and responsibilities,
approaches consistent standards, and revenue generation
improvements) and physical modification to
reduce geomorphic stressors
Promote Ecosystem Limited opportunities for ecosystem Enhanced opportunities for systemwide
Functions benefit ecosystem benefit
Native habitat may be integrated Floodway expansion provides substantial
into SPFC repair projects, primarily opportunity to improve ecosystem functions,
through mitigation fish passage, and the quantity, quality, and
diversity of natural habitats
Improve Continued dispersion of Improve flood management functions through
Institutional responsibilities and roles for flood changes and/or clarifications in current State
Support management in the Central Valley policy directives, legislated authority and
among many agencies with varying responsibilities, and partnerships with federal
functions and priorities and local partners
Promote Multi- Limited opportunities to integrate Enhanced opportunities to integrate water
Benefit Projects other benefits into repairs to SPFC quality, groundwater recharge, recreation,
facilities power, and other benefits
Ability to Meet Legislative Objectives (Completeness)
Ability to Meet Does not meet Addresses all objectives
Objectives in Flood Varied level of protection throughout Contributes to all objectives with proposed
Legislation the system and high potential for system and regional elements, and supporting
public safety and economic damages implementation policies and programs
Key:
PAGE 336 JUNE 2012

ACHIEVE ENHANCE STATE

SPFC DESIGN PROTECT FLOOD SYSTEMWIDE
PERFORMANCE CATEGORY FLOW HIGH RISK SYSTEM INVESTMENT
CAPACITY COMMUNITIES CAPACITY APPROACH
Flood Risk Reduction Benefit
Level of Flood Protection
Life Safety
Reduction in Economic Damages
Regional Economics
Integration and Sustainability
Promote Ecosystem Functions
Sustainable Land Uses
Cost $$$ $$ $$$ $$

Capital Costs $$$ $ $$$$ $$
Operations & Maintenance $$ $$$$ $ $$
BENEFIT KEY COST KEY
Low Moderate-High $ Low-Moderate $$$ Moderate-High

Low-Moderate High $$ Moderate $$$$ High
Moderate
Figure 3-6. Performance Comparison for All Approaches

High
Enhance Flood
System Capacity
$3241
Billion
Achieve SPFC
Design Flow
Capacity $1417
$911 Billion
Billion State
$1923 Systemwide
Billion Protect Investment
High Risk Approach
Communities
Low
Low High
Contributions to Primary Goal of Improving Flood Risk Management
KEY: SPFC = State Plan of Flood Control
Figure 3-7. Relative Comparison of State Systemwide
Investment Approach and Preliminary Approach Efficiency
JUNE 2012 PAGE 337

3.14 State Systemwide

Investment Approach Benefits
The SSIA, as a multi-benefit and integrated flood management approach, has many
direct and indirect benefits to the Central Valley, State, and nation. This section
summarizes the benefits of the SSIA.
Benefits assessed include reduced economic damages, benefits to local and regional
economies, improved public health and safety, ecosystem restoration, open space
and recreation, increased flood system resiliency and climate change adaptability,
water management, and reduced long-term flood system management costs. Some of
these benefits are presented quantitatively and some qualitatively, because some of
the benefits could not be calculated at this time. These benefits will be further refined
and documented during the feasibility study process scheduled to be initiated upon
adoption of the CVFPP by the Board.
3.14.1 Reduced Economic Flood Damages

The USACE Hydrologic Engineering Center Flood Damage Analysis (HEC-FDA)
model was used to estimate the flood risk reduction benefits of the SSIA. Expected
annual flood damages were computed over the array of potential floods, from small
to extremely large, compared with the no project condition. The flood damage esti-
mates consider the following:
Residential, commercial, industrial, and governmental structure and
contents damage
Agricultural/crop losses
Business production losses
Results of the modeling indicate an overall reduction in total expected annual dam-
ages of about 66 percent, with specific reductions in damages and losses as follows:
Structure and contents flood damages would be reduced by 73 percent
Crop damages due to flooding would be reduced by 6 percent
Business production losses would be reduced by 71 percent
3.14.2 Benefits to Local and Regional Economies

Reduction in flood damages is only one aspect of the potential economic benefits of
the SSIA. As illustrated in Figure 3-8, flood risk reduction improvements can also
provide both direct and indirect benefits to local, regional, and State economies.
Implementation of the SSIA would contribute to local and regional economic activi-
ties, as described below:
Increased benefits to regional economies Implementing the SSIA would
directly and indirectly benefit local and regional economies and support
continued economic development in the valley. Implementation of the plan
would reduce the potential for lost agricultural, commercial, and industrial
production/income, and secondary ripple effects, as a result of a flood.
PAGE 338 JUNE 2012

Construction activities related to SSIA implementation could be expected to

boost economic output over the coming decades by as much as $900 million,
and avoided business losses due to flooding could increase long-term
economic output by over $100 million. The potential for flood-induced
industry relocation or failure to recover to preflood levels would also be
reduced. In addition, construction projects resulting from implementation of
the SSIA would be expected to boost regional short-term employment and
employment incomes, and increase regional economic output. Construction
activities in support of SSIA implementation could be expected to gener-
ate as many as 6,500 jobs annually over the coming decades, while reduced
business losses from flooding could be expected to boost long-term employ-
ment. These employment economic benefits would also enhance the
revenues of local governments through increased income and sales taxes.
Enhanced agricultural sustainability Central Valley agriculture is a
critical sector of the State economy that provides and supports reliable,
affordable food and fiber production, both domestically and on a global
scale. Agricultural and associated processing industries and services also
account for a considerable portion of local employment. Flood management
improvements would reduce direct crop damages. Improved flood protection
would result in an increased ability to obtain favorable crop insurance cover-
age and rates. Similarly, improved protection would also increase the ability
to obtain agricultural loans with favorable terms. As a result, flood manage-
ment improvement has the potential to contribute to improved agricultural
sustainability. Over 90 percent of the citizens in rural-agricultural areas and
small communities within the SPFC Planning Area could receive additional
flood protection by levee improvement measures, flood proofing, and reloca-
tion opportunities presented in the SSIA.
SSIA
Construction
Expenditures
Structure
& Content
Damages
Flood Damage Regional Regional Economic
Business Economic Output and
Analysis Losses
(HEC-FDA) Impact Employment
Crop
Damages
Life Risk
Indirect/Induced
Direct Benefits Benefits
Key: HEC-FDA = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Centers Flood Damage Analysis
SSIA = State Systemwide Investment Approach
Figure 3-8. Components of Economic Analysis
JUNE 2012 PAGE 339

Reduced disruption of public services In addition to reducing physical

damages to structures and infrastructure, flood management improvements
would reduce potential disruption of critical public services needed to main-
tain the health, safety, and welfare of the population. These critical functions
include emergency services, transportation, health care, education, and public
utilities (water and wastewater, electricity, natural gas, and communications).
Interruption of these services and functions would greatly affect socioeco-
nomic conditions in the region and its economic and industrial diversity. The
CVFPP has not quantitatively assessed the loss of critical public services, but
has estimated the number of critical facilities exposed to flood hazards.
3.14.3 Improved Public Health and Safety

A primary objective of the SSIA is to protect the citizens living and working in the
floodplains of the Central Valley.
Reduced potential for injuries and loss of life When fully implemented,
the SSIA would significantly reduce the potential for flooding in urban areas
and other population centers, thereby reducing the direct threats posed by
flooding to public safety, including the potential for injury or loss of life.
Implementation of the SSIA would result in an increase in the population
receiving at least a 100-year (1% annual chance) level of flood protection
from the current 21 percent to over 90 percent. Additional reductions in the
potential for loss of life would be achieved as a result of nonstructural flood
mitigation, such as improved flood emergency response, operations and
maintenance, and floodplain management measures.
HEC-FDA was used to estimate life risk indicators and inform the decision-
making process. However, these values are NOT forecasts of deaths expected
to occur from flood events, to be used for emergency planning or other
purposes. Instead, these values are informative indices of life risk, provid-
ing a metric for assessing the reduction in life risk attributable to the SSIA.
Based on the analysis, the SSIA was shown to reduce life risk by about 49
percent compared with current conditions.
The economic and life safety benefits for the SSIA described above do not
include benefits attributable to projects that were recently completed or are
currently under construction. Therefore, the overall benefits of the SSIA
described herein are considerably underestimated.
Reduced release of hazardous materials during floods Floods can cause
a release of hazardous materials resulting in increased threats to public health
and safety. Hazardous materials and contaminants may exist in floodplains,
including feed lots, fuel tanks, septic systems, water and wastewater treat-
ment facilities, landfills, illegal dumping, and other sources. Improved flood
management under the SSIA would contribute to reducing public exposure to
hazardous materials released during floods and improve water quality.
PAGE 340 JUNE 2012

3.14.4 Ecosystem Restoration Benefits

Ecosystem restoration is fully integrated with the flood risk reduction components of
the SSIA. Major restoration benefits of the SSIA include the following:
Floodways would be expanded and extended to improve the flow carrying
capacity of the channels, and the lands acquired for the expansion would be
used for habitat restoration and environmentally-friendly agricultural activi-
ties. Over 10,000 acres of new habitats would be created within the flood
management system. In addition, over 25,000 acres of land would be leased
for growing grains, corn, and other habitat-compatible crops. Flood man-
agement system improvements would provide opportunities for improving
ecosystem function and increasing habitat extent, quantity, quality, and con-
nectivity from the Delta to the upper Sacramento River. Expanded floodways
would create space for river meandering, sediment erosion and deposition,
natural ecosystem disturbance processes, and a healthy diversity of riverine
habitat.
The SSIA would improve fish passage at flood diversions, flashboard dams,
and flood management structures. This includes connecting fishery habitat
from the Delta to the Yolo and Sutter bypasses and to the Butte Basin. These
actions would assist in increasing and improving habitat connectivity and
promoting the recovery of anadromous fish populations.
Changes in flood control facility operations, including directing flows more
frequently and for longer durations over weirs and into bypasses, levee set-
backs, and other similar measures planned under the SSIA, would enhance
riverine processes and improve the overall health of the ecosystem.
Overall, these restoration activities would contribute to improving habitat connec-

tivity along the flood management system, would provide for migration of fish to
spawning areas in the watershed, and would enhance riverine processes.
3.14.5 Open Space and Recreational Opportunities

The States interest in public health and sustainable economic growth are well
supported by the quality of life benefits of nature-based recreation and the economic
vitality provided by environmental tourism revenues. The potential for recreational
use of the flood control system has long been recognized. In 1929, when the flood
control system was under construction, noted landscape architect Frederick Law
Olmstead Jr. recommended that a system of recreation lands be preserved within the
leveed floodplains along the lower Sacramento River and other waterways.
The SSIA includes floodplain reconnection and floodway expansion, which would
improve ecosystem functions, fish passage, and the quantity, quality, and diversity
of natural habitats, all of which contribute to increasing opportunities for recreation
and ecotourism, as well as augmenting the aesthetic values of those areas. Expansion
of habitat areas provides fishing, hunting, and wildlife viewing opportunities. Recre-
ation-related spending associated with increased use by visitors can be an important
contributor to local and regional economies.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 341

3.14.6 Increasing Flood System Resiliency and

Climate Change Adaptability
Climate change is expected to result in more precipitation in the form of rainfall,
more frequent flooding, and higher peak flows. Expansion and extension of the
bypass system under the SSIA would reduce peak flood stages throughout the
system, increasing the flood carrying capacity of channels and, hence, add flexibility
to manage extreme flood events and future climate change effects.
3.14.7 Water Management Benefits

The SSIA, as an integrated flood and water management program, would provide op-
portunities for improved water management in many ways. While estimates of water
management benefits will be quantified for the 2017 CVFPP, DWR expects that the
average annual water management benefits of the SSIA may approach a few hundred
thousand acre-feet compared to No Project. SSIA elements that could contribute to
improved water management include reservoir operations and increases in channel
groundwater recharge due to expansion and extension of the bypass system.
Reservoir operation The F-CO program (see Section 3.5.8) is designed to
modify operation of reservoirs in a way that will improve flood management
and also provide opportunities for more aggressive refilling of reservoirs
during dry years. Such operations could increase water supplies within reser-
voirs, especially in dry years when the water supply system is most stressed.
Water supply benefits from F-BO would vary depending on current reservoir
operation manual requirements, watershed hydrology, flexibility in reservoir
operation (i.e., adequate release capacity), quality of reservoir inflow fore-
casts, etc. Therefore, a case-by-case study of flood management reservoirs
will be needed to adequately define and quantify the potential benefits of
reservoir F-BO.
Groundwater recharge Groundwater aquifers are naturally recharged
through various processes, including percolation of precipitation and infil-
tration of water from lakes, canals, irrigation and in-channel groundwater
recharge. Implementation of the SSIA includes expansion and extension of
the bypass system and levee setbacks. These actions would expand flood
system lands by an additional 35,000 to 40,000 acres, which would be
flooded during high water and contribute to in-channel and floodplain
groundwater recharge.
3.14.8 Reduced Long-Term Flood System

Management Costs
Although not quantified for the 2012 CVFPP, the SSIA was developed to reduce the
overall, long-term costs associated with flood management in the Central Valley.
This includes the following:
Reduced long-term emergency response and recovery needs
Reduced long-term operations and maintenance costs
Efficiency through regional approaches to permitting and regulatory needs
PAGE 342 JUNE 2012

3.15 Land Use

SPFC improvements under the SSIA provide for higher levels of flood protection for
existing land uses without taking actions that may encourage changes to those uses.
Elements of the SSIA have been carefully formulated to reduce flood risk in the area
protected by SPFC facilities while avoiding land use changes that promote growth in
deep floodplains and increase State flood hazard liabilities. Improved flood protec-
tion with the SSIA enhances the likelihood that activities associated with each exist-
ing land use will continue to thrive.
Following is a summary of land use conditions under the SSIA:

Urban Land Use Urban and urbanizing areas within the SPFC Planning
Area would achieve a minimum of 200-year (0.5% annual chance) flood pro-
tection, as specified by legislation. Legislation requires each city and county
within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley to amend its general plan to in-
clude data, analysis, goals, and policies for protection of lives and property,
and related feasible implementation measures. DWR
will make data, analysis, and information gathered for EFFECTS OF STATE SYSTEMWIDE
the CVFPP available to local agencies for inclusion in INVESTMENT APPROACH
their amended general plans. In addition, these local IMPLEMENTATION ON LAND USE
entities are required to amend their zoning ordinances to
be consistent with their general plans. As a result, urban Preliminary analyses indicate that with
development would continue based on sound planning; implementation of the SSIA it is expected
however, the SSIA does not promote urban development that:
in floodplains beyond existing urban/urbanizing areas. 100 percent of existing urban areas
Small Community Land Use The SSIA supports the protected by SPFC facilities attain 200-year
continued viability of small communities within the level of flood protection
SPFC Planning Area to preserve cultural and historical About 20 of the small communities in the
continuity and important social, economic, and public SPFC Planning Area (from a total of 27) will
services to rural-agricultural populations, agricultural attain 100-year level of flood protection, at
enterprises, and commercial operations. Under the a minimum. The rest of the small communi-
ties are expected to get flood protection
SSIA, several small communities within the SPFC
through nonstructural means, including
Planning Area would achieve 100-year (1% annual
raising, flood proofing, and relocation of
chance) flood protection through structural means such structures
as ring levees, where feasible. This would preserve
small community development opportunities within About 90 percent of residents in small com-
munities within the SPFC Planning Area will
specific boundaries without encouraging broader
receive at least 100-year flood protection
urban development. However, some small communities
adjacent to existing urban areas may achieve a 100-year In rural areas, the level of flood protection
level of flood protection or higher as a result of will increase slightly; in the Sacramento
River Basin, rural areas receiving a 25-
improvements for the adjacent urban areas. For other
year or higher level of protection would
small communities where structural improvements are increase by about 6 percent, while the San
not feasible, the SSIA proposes nonstructural means Joaquin River Basin will increase slightly
such as flood proofing and elevating structures to
About 10,000 acres of agricultural lands
support continued small communities land use,
would be converted to environmental
providing feasible flood protection in a way that is
habitat restoration within the expansion of
not growth-inducing. the bypass systems
JUNE 2012 PAGE 343

Rural-Agricultural Area Land Use The SSIA

includes improvements for rural-agricultural flood protection, but excludes
participation in flood projects to achieve 100-year (1% annual chance) flood
protection that would be growth-inducing and, thus, increase potential flood
risks. The SSIA includes many elements to preserve rural-agricultural viabil-
ity, such as purchase of conservation easements to preserve agriculture and
prevent urban development, when consistent with local land use planning
and in cooperation with willing landowners. Because expansion of floodways
would be primarily in rural-agricultural areas, some loss of agricultural land
would occur. However, based on preliminary planning, 75 percent of addi-
tional land needed for bypass expansion would continue to be farmed. The
remaining 25 percent that would be subject to more frequent flooding would
be converted to ecosystem uses.
The State will work with FEMAs National Flood Insurance Program to
promote the continued sustainable rural-agricultural economy and to
examine opportunities to provide affordable flood insurance for low risk
agricultural and farming structures in the floodplain.
Ecosystem/Open Space Land Use Opportunities for ecosystem and open
space land use would increase within the footprint of the flood management
system facilities, especially through expansion of bypasses and select areas
where setback levees for multiple benefits prove feasible. This net increase in
habitat area should contribute to flood risk reduction and ecosystem restora-
tion and enhancement, while providing for open space and recreational
opportunities in rural areas.
Setback levees along some reaches of the main rivers may increase habitat
area. These setbacks are likely to be most feasible in reaches where there are
known levee conditions that would be difficult to correct with fix-in-place
methods, operations and maintenance problems exist, channel hydraulic
performance would be significantly improved, regional flood risk
LIMITING GROWTH IN reduction benefits would be realized, and/or there is an opportu-
CENTRAL VALLEY FLOODPLAINS nity for uniquely valuable ecosystem restoration.
SSIA improvements are designed to

discourage growth in rural floodplains with
the intention of reducing flood risks. The
State does not promote flood management
improvements that would induce growth in
rural areas.
Urban flood risk reductions under the SSIA
will be limited to areas protected by facili-
ties of the State Plan of Flood Control.
Agricultural conservation measures
proposed by the SSIA are also designed
to limit conversion of agricultural land to
urban uses, and to preserve the robust
agricultural economy of the Central Valley.
Feather River Setback Levee was Constructed for Multiple Benefits

PAGE 344 JUNE 2012 Including Improved Flow Conditions
SECTION 4.0 | IMPLEMENTING AND MANAGING THE STATE
4.0 IMPLEMENTING AND MANAGING

THE STATE SYSTEMWIDE
INVESTMENT APPROACH
Section 3 outlined the integrated set of on-the-ground projects that comprise
the State Systemwide Investment Approach (SSIA). Section 4 describes how
DWR will implement the SSIA, including the development of feasibility
studies, funding strategies, and implementation challenges.
The SSIA is a broad plan for flood system improvements and additional work is
needed to refine its individual elements. Some elements have already been imple-
mented (since 2007), others will be accomplished before the first update of the
CVFPP in 2017, and many will require additional time to fully develop and imple-
ment. Ongoing planning studies, engineering, feasibility studies, designs, funding,
and partnering are required to better define, and incrementally fund and implement,
these elements over the next 20 to 25 years.
In general, DWR will continue to prioritize its implementation efforts on the most
significant flood risks. However, some critical elements could take longer to imple-
ment because of complexity, local and federal interest, and funding that will be made
available incrementally over the next few decades. While implementation must
occur incrementally, the accumulated outcome will be a sustainable flood
management system.
This section describes DWR programs and strategy for implementing and manag-
ing the SSIA over time, planning level cost estimates, and funding strategies and
partnership among federal, State, and local agencies needed to implement the SSIA.
Each of the programs below will have an implementation plan with details of
program activities and priorities.
4.1 Flood Management Programs

SSIA implementation requires a wide range of actions for developing, constructing,
and managing improvements to the SPFC. This work will be organized into several
programs, established and led by DWR and implemented in coordination with local,
State, and federal partnering agencies. These programs are governed by DWRs
existing FloodSAFE organization. Each program is responsible for specialized
implementation of different portions of the SSIA; together, they cover all work
required for implementation and management.
DWRs major flood management programs are as follows:

Flood Emergency Response Program
Flood System Operations and Maintenance Program
JUNE 2012 PAGE 41

Floodplain Risk Management Program

Flood System Assessment, Engineering, Feasibility, and Permitting Program
Flood Risk Reduction Projects Program
The first three programs are responsible for residual risk management. The fourth
program is responsible for conducting the feasibility evaluations and design, engi-
neering, and other activities necessary for implementation. The last program is
responsible for working with partnering agencies to implement on-the-ground
projects that are included in the SSIA.
The following sections describe these programs and related key policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 4.1.1 Flood Emergency Response Program

The responsibility of the Flood Emergency Response Program
Californias low socio-economic status
is to prepare for floods, effectively respond to flood events,
residents are often the most vulnerable
and quickly recover when flooding occurs. The SSIA supports
to the impacts of natural disasters due to
enhanced emergency response, particularly for rural-agricultural
the location and quality of housing, lack of
areas where physical improvements are not anticipated to be as
resources to relocate, barriers to trans-
extensive as in more populated areas. Program enhancements
portation, or other factors. Consequently, include providing flood hazard information, real-time flood data,
reducing the risk of flooding, and improving more frequent and timely flood forecasts, and state-of-the-art
flood emergency response are both very flood emergency information dissemination. In addition, the
relevant to low socio-economic status SSIA includes a State cost-shared program for improving levee
populations. crowns to provide all-weather access roads that allow agen-
It will be important and necessary for local cies to quickly respond to flood emergencies. This is a one-time
and regional agencies to incorporate en- State-local cost-shared program. The program also provides
vironmental justice principals into regional real-time flood information to assist local agencies in decid-
flood management plans and flood emer- ing whether and how to conduct flood emergency response and
gency response and recovery activities. evacuation actions for the public.
Reservoir flood operations during major flood events play a role in reducing down-
stream flood peaks. Coordinated operation of reservoirs to help manage the timing
of their individual flood peaks, thereby minimizing cumulative downstream flood
peaks, is a major element of the process.
Similarly, coordinated flood operations among local maintaining agencies, cities and
counties, the California Emergency Management Agency, the State-Federal Flood
Operation Center, and USACE are critically important in managing and fighting
floods, and saving lives and properties.
The Flood Emergency Response Program will make flood management system
information easily accessible to entities involved in flood management. Through the
California Data Exchange Center, the State intends to provide access to collected
flood management and related maps, data, and materials (including as-builts, opera-
tions and maintenance manuals, levee logs, permits, channel capacities, easements,
real-time flood data and forecasts, and flood models). In addition, through the State-
Federal Flood Operations Center, DWR will continue to provide flood fight assis-
PAGE 42 JUNE 2012

tance in the field in the form of technical

assistance, flood emergency response teams, and
materials when the local resources are exhausted.
DWR supports establishing a program to

assist local agencies in preparing flood emergency
response plans and developing appropriate re-
gional communications tools and processes for
emergency response operations. An important
consideration in flood emergency preparation is
the availability of strategically-located resources
for flood fight activities. Local maintaining agen-
cies, as the first responders, have the responsibil-
ity for stockpiling flood fight materials for timely To quickly respond to flood emergencies, the State proposes
response to flood threats before other flood fight to provide all-weather access roads on levee crowns
assistance becomes available. In addition, without
impacting necessary action to protect public safety
during an emergency, response planning should
consider opportunities to avoid and minimize
ecosystem impacts.
4.1.2 Flood System Operations and

Maintenance Program
The Flood System Operations and Maintenance Program includes work to keep
specific flood management facilities (as defined in the California Water Code)
in good, serviceable condition so that facilities continue to function as designed.
Program activities include channel maintenance (hydraulic assessments, sediment
removal, channel clearing, and vegetation management); erosion and levee repairs;
levee inspection, evaluation, and maintenance; and repair and replacement of
hydraulic structures.
Currently, operations and maintenance responsibilities within the flood manage-

ment system are fragmented and often confusing. Funding has been insufficient to
keep pace with the rising cost of routine maintenance. Implementation of the SSIA
requires efficient and sustainable long-term operations and maintenance practices
through the following:
Reforming roles and responsibilities
Formalizing criteria by which maintenance practices, procedures, and
inspections are performed and reported
Implementing strategies to adequately and reliably fund routine activities
and streamline permitting
Some of the proposed activities will likely involve legislative action, new institu-
tional arrangements involving local maintaining agencies, modifications to existing
State programs, and additional revenue generation.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 43

The SSIA includes enhancements to the current operations and maintenance of the
flood management system, as described in the following sections.
Consolidation of States Role and Responsibility

The State supports consolidation of operations and maintenance responsibilities,
where appropriate, for the purpose of improving efficiency and maintaining critical
flood system functions.
The State will work with local maintaining agencies to examine opportuni-
ties and local agency support for legislative action that would allow DWR
to assume full operations and maintenance responsibility for the Sacramento
River bypass system (Sutter and Yolo bypasses, in combination with their
appurtenant control features the Moulton, Colusa, Tisdale, Fremont, and
Sacramento weirs/bypasses, and proposed new bypasses, when constructed)
to support proper function during flooding conditions. DWR will require
State funding augmentation before accepting this additional responsibility.
The bypass system is a central element of the Sacramento River Flood
Control Project, conveying the majority of floodflows. The State currently
has responsibility for maintaining a portion of these facilities under the
California Water Code.
The State supports working with local maintaining agencies and, with their
support, developing a coordinated partnership program to conduct regular
erosion repairs on the waterside of the Sacramento River and the San Joa-
quin River levee systems to promote efficient and timely repairs. The State
already has significant responsibility for maintaining certain channels and
a portion of certain levees under the California Water Code. Local agencies
would be expected to contribute a cost-share component, fee, or equivalent,
in exchange for the States service recognizing that because of different
statutory responsibilities for the Sacramento and San Joaquin systems, the
cost-share would likely be different.
Standardization of Operations and Maintenance Practices

The State supports implementing more comprehensive and enhanced operations and
maintenance standards for SPFC facilities. This would include formalizing criteria
and guidance for operations and maintenance practices and procedures, such as best
management practices to facilitate efficient maintenance and environmental compli-
ance. The guidance would provide a common basis for State inspection and report-
ing activities, which serve as the basis for evaluating State funding and assistance
eligibility.
The State will take the lead role in training local agencies to implement enhanced
operations and maintenance standards and guidelines. Furthermore, the State has
a continued interest in enforcing maintenance area formation per California Water
Code Section 12878, where appropriate, in rare cases when local agencies consis-
tently fail to meet routine maintenance expectations.
PAGE 44 JUNE 2012

Consolidation of Roles and Responsibilities of Local Agencies

The State has an interest in encouraging local agencies, especially in rural-
agricultural areas, to form regional maintenance authorities to enhance their ability
to collectively perform their operations and maintenance responsibilities. The State
prefers voluntary formation of joint power authorities, similar to those established in
urban areas, with possible State-sponsored incentives.
FLOOD SYSTEM OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE AND ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
Over the years, the Flood System Operations and Maintenance Program has made significant steps in incorporating
environmental stewardship into its operations. Some of these steps include the following:
Enhanced interagency collaboration to efficiently integrate public safety and environmental stewardship objectives.
Routine maintenance agreement with Department of Fish and Game to minimize environmental impacts associated with
routine flood control project operations and maintenance.
Initiated Corridor Management planning on the Feather River to protect public safety in a manner that also enhances
the environment.
Integrated environmental specialists in project design and development.
Increased environmental training of maintenance staff and cross pollination of information between engineers, geology
staff, and environmental scientists.
Increased coordination with local stream groups in development of channel management actions.
Developed and implemented a levee vegetation management strategy as an alternative to USACE vegetation removal
policy. Managed vegetation research to improve understanding of public safety implications of the vegetation on
the levees.
Increased utilization of native species in restoration activities.
Implemented selective vegetation management to support habitat enhancement.
Integrated habitat enhancement into major rehabilitation projects.
Implemented enhanced invasive species removal and control.
Worked on fish passage improvements structures along important migration corridors.
Adopted scheduling of maintenance activities to avoid sensitive time periods for species.
Worked in partnership with other agencies to create habitat.
Changed channel vegetation management from dozing and disking to mowing and expanded channel grazing program.
Implemented equipment retrofits for improved air quality.
Increased recycling of waste product and initiated chipping of wood debris for co-generation fuel as opposed to burning
on site.
Purchased specialized equipment to minimize environmental disturbance during maintenance activities.
Expanded use of hand crews in areas containing sensitive environmental resources.
Utilization of carefully selected herbicides and rodenticides to minimize impacts to nontargeted species.
Rehabilitated Maintenance Yard buildings for energy efficiencies.
Implemented landscape water use efficiency improvements at maintenance yards.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 45

4.1.3 Floodplain Risk Management Program

The Floodplain Risk Management Program strives to reduce the consequences of
riverine flooding in the Central Valley. A major focus of this work is the delineation
and evaluation of floodplains to assist local decision makers with their near-term and
long-term land use planning efforts.
The State promotes an enhanced floodplain management program, especially in

rural-agricultural areas, through the following:
The State will actively engage FEMA to help provide grants to local
agencies and citizens for applicable risk mitigation actions, including prop-
erty acquisition, structure demolition, and relocation; and floodproofing and
elevating residential and nonresidential structures.
Senate Bill 5, and related legislation passed in 2007, established various
floodplain management requirements for cities and counties related to local
land use planning. The State will collaborate with local planning agencies
and provide information used to develop the CVFPP to help them integrate
these data into their local land use planning. The State will also encourage
local planning agencies to actively participate in development of regional
flood management plans, which will help to reduce flood risk for local juris-
dictions and comply with the provisions of Senate Bill 5.
The State supports efforts to reform the National Flood Insurance Program
that would result in more equitable implementation while reflecting cor-
responding flood risks. Nationally-supported flood insurance premiums and
payouts should be commensurate with demonstrated flood risk for a structure
or area to encourage sound floodplain management at the State, local, and
personal levels. Structures that sustain flood losses outside FEMA Special
Flood Hazard Areas should be evaluated and their flood insurance premiums
adjusted based on their full risk of flooding. In addition, to sustain agricul-
tural communities and support the natural and beneficial functions of flood-
plains, FEMA should consider establishing a flood zone for agriculturally-
based communities to allow replacement or reinvestment development in the
floodplain for existing structures. The State will work with FEMA to
consider a special, lower rate structure that reflects actual flood risks for
agricultural buildings in rural-agricultural areas located in Special Flood
Hazard Areas.
4.1.4 Flood System Risk Assessment, Engineering,

Feasibility, and Permitting Program
Risk Assessment, Engineering, and Feasibility Evaluations
Risk assessments and engineering are performed under this program that support
ongoing planning, feasibility evaluations, and refinement of the SSIA. The program
looks beyond individual projects to plan the manner in which all flood management
facilities, operations, habitat and ecosystem restoration, and other practices work
together as a system to protect life and property and enhance the ecosystem.
PAGE 46 JUNE 2012

The program will support development of site-specific improvements. Feasibil-

ity studies and updates to the CVFPP will be prepared under this program. This
program will also perform flood system engineering and modeling assessments of
existing facility conditions for use in identifying areas needing improvements. In
addition, the program will develop and maintain hydrologic, hydraulic, geotechnical,
economic, and other models and relationships, providing the foundation of informa-
tion necessary for developing site-specific and systemwide projects. In support of
the CVFPP, this program will prepare two basin-wide feasibility studies, in partner-
ship with USACE, as described in Section 4.4.4.
Role of USACE in Flood Risk Reduction Projects

The majority of Central Valley flood management facilities, and nearly all SPFC
facilities, are part of the State-federal flood protection system. Any modifications
or additions to, or deletions from, an existing federal flood management project
require federal participation and approval through USACE and Congress. Major
improvements or modifications to the SPFC will require a federal feasibility study.
Feasibility-scope investigations are a critical and integral part of federal involvement
in new water resources projects or modification to existing federal projects. Feasibil-
ity reports and subsequent documentation are used by federal decision makers and
Congress to authorize new projects or project modifications and appropriate funds.
USACE, in partnership with the State and other local interests, is currently conduct-
ing a number of feasibility studies in the Central Valley. After feasibility studies are
completed and successfully processed, it is anticipated that, in accordance with their
findings and recommendations, the studies will lead to Congressional authorization
and appropriation. Federal feasibility studies are an element of the State Flood Risk
Reduction Projects Program. DWR and the Board are actively coordinating with
USACE on these feasibility studies. Additional information concerning federal feasi-
bility investigations is presented in Section 4.4.3.
Integrated Flood System Improvements and Permitting

DWR has initiated integrated flood management programs that could also facilitate
permitting processes for implementing flood risk reduction programs and operations
and maintenance of the flood management system in the Central Valley. Below are
descriptions of major programs to achieve the goal of implementing multiobjective
projects while facilitating programmatic permitting for flood management activities.
Upon adoption of the CVFPP, these programs could inform DWR and partnering
agencies in developing the Conservation Strategy that promotes implementation of
integrated multiobjective projects while reducing or eliminating the need for mitiga-
tion, facilitating project permitting and reducing the costs and the time needed to
acquire required permits.
Conservation Planning
This program coordinates the development and implementation of system and
regional approaches for improving ecosystems associated with the flood manage-
ment system. An initial Conservation Framework, included as Attachment 2, will
provide environmental guidance for integrated flood project planning until the more
detailed Conservation Strategy is completed in time to guide development of the
JUNE 2012 PAGE 47

2017 CVFPP. The Conservation Strategy described below integrates measures to

mitigate potential impacts to environmental resources resulting from improvements
to the SPFC, along with other ecosystem restoration activities implemented within
the SFPC footprint.
APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL DWR, through development of the future Conservation Strat-

COMPLIANCE AND ENHANCEMENTS egy, is evaluating systemwide and regional permitting ap-
proaches that will bring efficiencies to the approval processes
Through development of the Conserva- for project construction and operations and maintenance activi-
tion Framework and future Conservation ties. The Conservation Framework provides an overview of
Strategy, DWR is evaluating systemwide floodway ecosystem conditions and trends, key conservation
and regional permitting approaches that goals that further clarify the CVFPP supporting goal of pro-
will bring efficiencies to the approval moting ecosystem functions, and the ways flood management
processes for project construction and op- improvements can be accomplished to improve both public
erations and maintenance activities. These safety and environmental conditions. The future Conservation
permitting approaches are being informed Strategy will be consistent with the Conservation Framework
through analyses of restoration opportuni- and provide a comprehensive, long-term approach for the State
ties to help prioritize restoration as mitiga- to achieve the objectives of the Central Valley Flood Protection
tion investments. Act, FloodSAFE, and CVFPP Goals.
Corridor Management Strategy

The Corridor Management Strategy involves developing a vision, strategy, and plan
(Corridor Management Plan (CMP)) for managing river corridors that integrate flood
risk management, improved ecosystem function, and water management over a long-
term planning horizon (greater than 30 years). A CMP includes a strategy for man-
aging flood protection facilities, conveyance channels, floodplains, and associated
uplands; a maintenance plan; and a restoration plan. A CMP also identifies policies
for compatible land uses, such as agriculture and recreation, within the corridor. In
addition to addressing habitat restoration and flood facility maintenance, CMPs are
a foundation for securing programmatic regulatory agency approvals for ongoing
maintenance activities and routine habitat restoration. CMPs rely on coordination,
collaboration, and cooperative working relationships with interested parties and
stakeholders, including State, federal, and local agencies, nongovernmental organi-
zations, maintenance districts, agricultural interests, and landowners. The State has
initiated development of a CMP for a 20-mile-long reach of the lower Feather River
(from Yuba City to the Sutter Bypass). CMPs will be a key method for working with
agricultural communities, in particular, in a coordinated approach to implementing
the Conservation Strategy.
CMP strategies are a means of restructuring existing flood management practices

and policies implemented within a given management area to benefit and enhance
the environment without compromising actions required by practices and policies.
CMPs effectively support the development and implementation of the CVFPP an
integrated flood management plan to reduce flood risk, promote ecosystem function,
and create a more sustainable flood management system that allows for ongoing
operations and maintenance activities.
PAGE 48 JUNE 2012

Flood Corridor Program

The Flood Corridor Program is a unique local assistance program focused on provid-
ing nonstructural flood risk reduction integrated with natural resource and agricul-
tural land protection. The Flood Corridor Program is implementing multiobjective
projects that create and restore natural floodways, reconnecting streams and rivers to
their historic floodplains, where feasible, and using other nonstructural approaches
such as constructing levee setbacks, creating detention basins, and removing struc-
tures from flood-prone areas. The integrated approach helps DWR and the State
achieve public goals of making communities safe from flooding while restoring
important wildlife habitat and protecting farmland.
The above programs and CMP approach will collectively help implement the ele-
ments of the SSIA. As shown in Figure 4-1, each program contributes to system
improvements, urban improvements, small community improvements, and rural-
agricultural area improvements. System improvements will also provide additional
flow capacity and flood system flexibility to accommodate climate change and large
flood events (over 200-year events).
SYSTEM URBAN SMALL RURAL

FLOOD MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS COMMUNITIES AREAS
Flood System Operations and Maintenance
Floodplain Risk Management
Flood System Assessment, Engineering,

Feasibility, and Permitting
Flood Risk Reduction Projects
Key: Full Contribution Partial Contribution
Figure 4-1. Flood Management Programs and Their Relative Contributions to

State Systemwide Investment Approach Implementation
Rural-Agricultural Area Flood Management

The State will help coordinate activities needed to improve flood management in
rural-agricultural areas. Over 90 percent of the Central Valleys levee-protected
floodplains are rural-agricultural in character, with levees providing limited flood
protection to over 60,000 people.
The approximately 1,200-mile-long State-federal levee system protecting rural-

agricultural areas was constructed to a geometry standard using available soil
materials with the intent to pass design flows with adequate freeboard. In recent
years, it has become clear that a large portion of the rural-agricultural levee system
does not meet current levee engineering performance standards because of inade-
JUNE 2012 PAGE 49

quate cross sections, geotechnical weaknesses, erosion, encroachments, penetrations,

or other concerns. It is also clear that the combined resources of local agencies, the
State, and the federal government will not be sufficient to improve the levees pro-
tecting rural-agricultural areas to meet the current 100-year level of flood protection
performance standards. The CVFPP recognizes these realities, but also notes that
it is important to improve flood protection for rural-agricultural areas, to the extent
feasible, on a prioritized basis.
Historically, the highly variable and largely unknown geotechnical characteristics of

rural-agricultural levees were addressed through inspections, flood fighting during
flood events, and periodic repairs. The accepted practice has been to conduct regular
inspections during flood events to identify areas of weakness (such as erosion sites,
boils, sloughs, fallen trees, and cracks), followed by vigorous flood fights and post-
flood repairs wherever these weaknesses appeared. Therefore, it is fundamentally
important to provide access for inspection and flood fighting activities via all-weath-
er roadways on levee crowns and, where possible, on the landside levee toes. The
program will invest in rural-agricultural area levees, addressing the greatest risk
factors first.
Upon adoption of the CVFPP, the State will work with the local maintaining
agencies to develop local and regional flood management plans for repairs and
improvements to rural-agricultural levee systems. These plans will identify actions
to improve public safety and reduce flood damages in a cost-effective manner, with
financial support from the State, when feasible. The local flood management plans
will prioritize improvements within rural-agricultural basins, with an emphasis on
past performance and life safety.
The State supports developing rural levee repair criteria for rural-agricultural areas,
in coordination with local and regional flood management agencies. While Urban
Levee Design Criteria should be applied when the consequences of failure may
result in significant loss of life or billions of dollars in damages in an urban area,
implementing levee improvements or repairs to meet this standard requires an
enormous financial investment that is difficult to justify in rural-agricultural areas.
The State supports cost-sharing of the following rural-agricultural flood management

improvements, subject to availability of funds and where feasible to:
Providing opportunities to improve reaches of levee where a failure would
result in rapid, deep flooding of a small community.
Providing opportunities to improve reaches of levee that protect critical
infrastructure of statewide importance.
Addressing known, localized performance problems or levees that have ex-
perienced distress during past flood events, prioritized based on flood risk.
Improving access for flood emergency response and flood fighting by pro-
viding all-weather access roads on levee crowns, with associated ramps and
turnouts.
Improving visibility and accessibility by removing or modifying encroach-
ments, where necessary.
PAGE 410 JUNE 2012

Preparing and implementing economically feasible local or regional flood

management plans. Benefits could include reduced flood damages, improved
life safety, protection of critical infrastructure, and ecosystem restoration.
Repairing rural-agricultural erosion sites identified by the latest inspection,
on a priority basis (most critical first).
Developing rural levee repair criteria, in coordination with local and regional
flood management agencies.
The State may help local agencies identify feasible projects, prepare financial plans,
and develop cost-sharing arrangements to implement feasible flood management
improvements in rural-agricultural areas.
The State also proposes reducing small community flood risks by improving levees
protecting small communities and/or constructing new levees and flood walls (see
Section 3). In many small communities, struc-
tural improvements will not be economically
feasible and other management actions may be
implemented, including working with FEMA to
provide assistance for floodproofing homes and
structures or relocating structures from deep
floodplains. In addition, the State will work
with FEMA to evaluate the feasibility of a pro-
gram to provide post-flood recovery assistance
to rural-agricultural areas (See Section 4.1.3).
4.1.5 Flood Risk Reduction

Projects Program
The Flood Risk Reduction Projects Program
Erosion along the Sacramento River in January 2002
works to develop on-the-ground projects (see
Section 3) that are compatible with and support the CVFPP Goals. In addition to im-
provement of existing facilities and implementation of new projects, some existing
flood protection facilities may be removed or modified under this program if the fa-
cilities no longer support system performance (see Section 4.3). State investments in
system improvements may be through direct investment in new or improved facili-
ties or through grant programs. System improvements will generally be implement-
ed through a partnership program and cost-sharing among DWR, local agencies, the
Board, and USACE, as the interests of agencies in the improvements are identified.
Three major implementation programs are required to develop and construct on-the-
ground projects: System Improvements, High Risk Area Flood Risk Reductions, and
Small Community Flood Risk Reductions programs. In addition, all levels of project
funding, planning, design, and development will consider opportunities to integrate
ecosystem enhancements with flood damage reduction projects.
The following is a summary of each implementation program for the Flood Risk
Reduction Projects Program.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 411

System Improvements
This program will coordinate development of more complicated system projects,
such as system reservoir operations, expansion and extension of flood bypasses, new
bypasses, flood system structures, and ecosystem enhancements (including fish and
wildlife habitat enhancement and fish passage improvements). System improvements
will provide operational flexibility during major flood events by lowering peak flood
stages throughout the system, redirecting devastating floodflows away from urban
areas, creating open space, and providing integration of ecosystem enhancement and
flood risk reduction. Specific actions under this program include the following:
Acquiring land and establishing easements
Improving existing levees in urban areas and construction of new setback
levees, where feasible
Developing and extending riparian corridors and environmental restoration
Implementing fish passage improvements and fish and wildlife
habitat connectivity
Upgrading flood control structures and removing sediment from bypass
system weirs, gates, and channels
Coordinating reservoir operations during major floods and establishing
dynamic flood control diagrams, where feasible
Participation and partnership in this program by USACE will be critical for imple-
menting large-scale systemwide projects. The State and local project sponsors would
be responsible for any lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations. An important
element of system improvements is the Conservation Strategy, discussed in
Section 4.1.4.
High Risk Area Flood Risk Reductions

This program will coordinate development of regional flood damage reduction
projects for urban areas to achieve an urban level of flood protection (protection
from a 200-year flood). This program replaces the Early Implementation Program
that DWR managed during the first phase of FloodSAFE. Many
APPROACH TO URBAN local agencies, including Reclamation District 784, the City of
FLOOD RISK REDUCTION Marysville, Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency, and those in the
Sacramento, West Sacramento, and Stockton areas, have been
The SSIA outlines improvements to SPFC working diligently toward achieving the goal of providing 200-
facilities to achieve 200-year flood protec- year protection. This program will be implemented in partner-
tion for existing urban and adjacent urban- ship with local agencies and USACE, with close coordination
izing areas. Some urban areas receive and cooperation among program participants.
protection from SPFC levees and local,
non-SPFC levees. The State would assist Small Community Flood Risk Reductions
local agencies in improving these pertinent This program will coordinate the development of local flood
non-SPFC levees to achieve an urban level damage reduction projects for small communities. This
of flood protection, but without accepting program may include State-led improvements to SPFC facilities
any responsibility for those levees as they or provide support for locally sponsored projects. The program
may remain non-SPFC facilities. activities may include achieving 100-year flood protection by
constructing new ring levees around small communities and
PAGE 412 JUNE 2012

improvement of existing levees and floodwalls where feasible. Some small com-
munities adjacent to existing urban areas may achieve a 100-year level of flood
protection or higher as a result of improvement for the adjacent urban areas. In
addition to feasible structural improvements (see Section 3), previously discussed
small communities may be considered for non-structural flood risk reduction, such
as flood-proofing, raising structures, and relocation of structures. This program will
be implemented in partnership with local agencies, FEMA, and USACE, with close
coordination and cooperation among program participants.
4.2 Levee Vegetation Management Strategy

Levee vegetation management practices and procedures are an important compo-
nent of the Flood System Operations and Maintenance Program, and of numerous
ongoing and proposed flood risk reduction projects. Through management actions
set forth in the CVFPP, and the associated Conservation Framework, the State will
implement a flexible and adaptive integrated vegetation management strategy that
meets public safety goals and protects and enhances sensitive habitats within the
Central Valley. Implementation of the States approach to levee vegetation manage-
ment will be adaptive and responsive to (1) the results of ongoing and future
research, and (2) knowledge gained from levee performance during high
water events.
The State recognizes that woody vegetation on levees must be appropriately

managed. The States levee vegetation management strategy is focused on improv-
ing public safety by providing for levee integrity, visibility, and accessibility for
inspections, maintenance and flood fight operations; at the same time, it protects
important and critical environmental resources. While the strategy has a particular
focus on protecting and enhancing the remaining shaded riverine aquatic habitat
associated with the SPFC, it also addresses long-term quality and connectivity of
habitat within the full flood management corridor.
Levee failure mechanisms (or risk factors), such as under-seepage, through-seepage,

slope and structural instability, erosion, and deep rodent burrows, indisputably have
negative impacts on levee integrity and public safety. Legacy levee vegetation does
not fall into such a grouping of unequivocal failure mechanisms. Given that
USACE Engineer Research and Development Centers research report (July, 2011)
has shown that woody vegetation has the potential to increase or reduce risk,
depending on a variety of factors, DWR believes it is appropriate to characterize
woody vegetation as only a potential risk factor that should be considered in rela-
tion to the unequivocal risk factors. One of the findings of the Flood Control System
Status Report (2011) is that levee vegetation is a low threat to levee integrity in
comparison with other risk factors; this is consistent with the fact that, with many
levee failures in California, none have been attributed to vegetation.
From a flood threat perspective, lower waterside slope vegetation rarely presents
an unacceptable threat to levee integrity. However, lower waterside slope vegeta-
tion more typically provides beneficial functions, such as slowing near shore water
velocities and holding soil in place to reduce erosion. Dense riparian brush provides
the greatest erosion protection and least levee safety threat. Larger woody vegeta-
tion helps stabilize levees through extensive root systems. In consideration of the
JUNE 2012 PAGE 413
relatively low potential threat to public safety and high habitat value for State- and
federally-listed species, the State will, in coordination with State and federal
resource agencies:
Allow retention of vegetation on the lower water-
side levee slope (below the vegetation manage-
ADAPTIVE LEVEE ment zone)
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT Protect existing lower waterside levee slope veg-
Implementation of the States strategy for levee etation on State-maintained levees, and encourage
vegetation management will be adaptive and
a similar practice for projects and maintenance
activities by local entities
responsive to (1) the results of ongoing and future
research, and (2) knowledge gained from levee Allow development of appropriate vegetation
performance during high water events. The strate- on the lower waterside levee slope and near the
gies outlined below for the lower waterside slope waterside levee toe
and for the vegetation management zone provide a For the systemwide scale of the CVFPP, it is not
path forward for CVFPP implementation. practical to assess each levee segment individually to
Lower Waterside Slope determine relative risk factors and to prioritize inte-
In order to sustain critical habitat, the CVFPP grated system improvements. An expectation of site
levee management strategy retains lower water- by site or tree by tree assessments would create an
side vegetation (below the vegetation manage- unreasonable administrative burden for project propo-
ment zone). Vegetation would be removed (in nents and agency staff of all project partners. However,
coordination with resource agencies) only when through routine inspections, levees will be inspected
it presents an unacceptable threat. multiple times each year for a wide variety of potential
Vegetation Management Zone: problems, including trees that may pose an unaccept-
Life Cycle Management (LCM) able threat to levee integrity, or which create a visibil-
LCM addresses visibility and accessibility ity problem within the vegetation management zone.
criteria while progressing gradually (over many
decades) towards the current USACE vegeta- This strategy affords levee maintaining agencies with
tion policy goal of eventually eliminating woody flexibility and encourages them to retain existing trees
vegetation from the vegetation management and other woody vegetation. Because of the importance
zone on the landside slope, crown, and upper of these critical vegetation resources, it is anticipated
waterside slope of levees. that implementing this vegetation strategy will result in
LCM addresses resource agency objectives to retaining, in the near-term, the vast majority of existing
protect and improve riparian habitat by largely trees and other woody vegetation that provide impor-
preserving in the near-term existing vegetation tant and critical habitat. In the long-term, it is antici-
within the vegetation management zone that does pated that the vast majority of trees and other woody
not impair visibility and accessibility, while devel- vegetation on the lower waterside levee slope would be
oping additional habitat under the Conservation left to continue to grow with appropriate management.
Strategy to offset gradual die-off of existing trees
and the removal of trees that pose an unaccept-
A chronology of past and ongoing interaction with
able threat to levee integrity. For the long-term, it
USACE regarding implementation of USACE levee
is anticipated that continued scientific research,
potential system modifications, and evolving vegetation policy and Public Law 84-99 rehabilita-
vegetation policy will support preservation and tion eligibility is provided in Section 3; a summary
restoration of sustainable riparian habitat within of the CVFPP levee vegetation management strategy
the levee system. is described below, and the full text of that strategy is
included in Attachment 2 Conservation Framework.
Specific vegetation management procedures will be
dependent on whether a levee is (1) a new or legacy
PAGE 414 JUNE 2012

levee, and (2) directly adjacent to the river or set back from the channel.
Revisions to the following procedures may be considered in future 5-year updates to
the CVFPP. The following summarizes the current vegetation management strategy:
The State proposes adherence to USACE guidance for new levee construc-
tion, which typically would be new setback, bypass, or ring levees located
away from the river channel.
Vegetation present on the system, except for the lower waterside slope, will
be trimmed to provide for visibility and access, as originally defined in the
Framework Agreement, signed February 27, 2009 by participants of the
California Levees Roundtable. It is important to note that the vegetation that
was introduced, allowed, required as mitigation, or endorsed by a previous
USACE action as necessary to comply with environmental requirements,
and/or was present when the levee system was transferred from USACE to
a nonfederal sponsor, will not be removed (unless changed conditions cause
such vegetation to pose an unacceptable threat or it creates a visibility prob-
lem within the vegetation management zone).
Vegetation present on the system will be evaluated, based on accepted
engineering practice, and as part of the routine operations and maintenance
responsibilities of DWR and other levee maintaining agencies, trees and
other woody vegetation will be monitored to identify changed conditions
that could pose an unacceptable threat. DWR will develop and incorporate
vegetation criteria into its inspection checklist to guide identification of
potential threats, as the science becomes available. Any vegetation that has
been evaluated and found to present an unacceptable threat will be removed
in coordination with the resource agencies.
DWR will implement, and will advise local maintainers in their implemen-
tation of an adaptive vegetation management strategy. This strategy will
include a long-term vegetation life-cycle management plan, which will allow
existing trees and other woody vegetation of a certain size to live out their
normal life cycles, but will result in the gradual elimination of trees and
other woody vegetation from the vegetation management zone though the
removal of immature (less than 4 inches) trees and immature woody veg-
etation. Throughout their lives and after their deaths, these trees and other
woody vegetation will be periodically evaluated and, if found to pose an
unacceptable threat to levee integrity would be removed in coordination with
the resource agencies.
Implementation of the life-cycle management plan will result in the gradual
loss of important terrestrial and upper waterside riparian habitat throughout
the State-federal project levee system. However, the CVFPPs vegetation
management strategy includes the early establishment of riparian forest
corridors that will result in a net gain of this habitat. The Conservation
Framework includes a tree planting program, which will be more fully
defined in the Conservation Strategy, to ensure that the quantity and quality
of the riparian corridors of the Central Valley are maintained and enhanced
over time. A monitoring plan will also be included in the Conservation
Strategy.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 415

The CVFPP also calls for encouraging and supporting research on the risks
and benefits of trees on levee performance, and techniques for concurrently
achieving flood risk reduction and environmental quality goals. State and
local agency-sponsored research, along with USACE-sponsored research, are
addressing information gaps surrounding levee performance through applied
research and an ongoing synthesis of historical information. Findings of
these research programs are informing current policy development, and will
continue to do so for future CVFPP updates. In addition, further research will
follow up on recent research into the effects of woody vegetation on levees,
and address other data gaps. DWR and its partnering agencies will incorpo-
rate new information into evolving policies and practices.
4.2.1 Long-Term Compatibility of State Levee

Vegetation Management Strategy and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Vegetation Policy
As described in the foregoing, removing lower waterside levee slope vegetation is
a very low priority and would generally not be justified until high levee risk factors
(as documented in the Flood Control System Status Report (2011)) are addressed.
However, compatibility between the State levee vegetation management strategy
and USACE vegetation policy is potentially achievable when framed in the
following context:
Through long-term implementation of life-cycle vegetation

management on the landside slope, crown, and upper wa-
terside slope of SPFC levees, the CVFPP levee vegetation
management strategy will gradually (over a period of de-
cades) result in levees clear of woody vegetation, consistent
with USACE vegetation policy, except for lower waterside
vegetation which is mostly the same part of the levee where
USACE has indicated that variances can be appropriate.
DWR believes that the best path toward State-USACE vegetation policy compatibil-
ity is through a sufficiently flexible systemwide variance process consistent with the
above levee vegetation management strategy that can supplement, if necessary, the
existing vegetation variance for lower waterside slope vegetation (per USACE letter
dated August 3, 1949). Removal of woody vegetation on the lower water side that
does not pose an unacceptable threat to levee integrity will be deferred indefinitely
to allow for development of new information, tools, and techniques that can expand
future options for mutually acceptable treatment of lower waterside vegetation.
4.3 Removal and Addition of

State Plan of Flood Control Facilities
As the SSIA is implemented, some features of the SPFC may prove to be obsolete
and slated for removal, while other features may be added. The following provides
guidance for physical and administrative removal and addition of SPFC facilities.
PAGE 416 JUNE 2012

4.3.1 State Plan of Flood Control Facilities Removal

Over the years, some of the facilities included in the SPFC have ceased to exist,
have failed to achieve their original design objectives, have deteriorated to the point
of becoming nonfunctioning, or otherwise have become a detriment to the existing
system. Accordingly, in some cases, it is in the public interest for the State to for-
mally remove these facilities from the SPFC. Removal of a facility from the SPFC
may consist of physical and administrative actions, or only administrative actions.
Physical removal of any facility is subject to a case-by-case evaluation. To be con-
sidered for removal from the SPFC, candidate facilities need to meet one or more of
the following criteria:
Physical removal of the SPFC facility would result in
improving the flood management system
ACT OF 2008
Removal of the SPFC facility is in the mutual interest of
the State and the local maintaining agency California Water Code Section 9614 (h)
The evaluation shall include a list of facili-
Physical removal of the facility has already been
ties recommended to be removed from the
initiated or completed
State Plan of Flood Control. For each facility
For facilities to be removed from the SPFC, it must be demon- recommended for removal, the evaluation
strated that such action would not cause unacceptable impacts to shall identify both of the following:
other flood management features, protected people or property, (1) The reasons for proposing the removal
or to nonflood management purposes. If removal of a specific of the facility from the State Plan of Flood
facility would cause potential undesirable or unacceptable effects Control.
to flood management or to other purposes, mitigation measures
(2) Any additional recommended actions
would be implemented to offset such potential adverse effects
associated with removing the facility from
before the facility is removed. Facilities recommended to be
the State Plan of Flood Control.
removed from the SPFC are listed and discussed in Section 3.4.4.
4.3.2 State Plan of Flood Control Facilities Addition

Ongoing State-federal projects in the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins are
expected to become part of the SPFC after completion, and turned over to the State
and local maintaining agencies. Also, while some projects completed through the
Early Implementation Projects Program and Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of
1970 are not currently part of the SPFC, they may become part of the SPFC in the
future after undergoing the appropriate processes.
Generally, the traditional way for facilities to become part of the SPFC is by comple-
tion of the following processes:
USACE prepares a Chief of Engineers Report to recommend to Congress
that federal participation in a project be authorized and that completed works
be incorporated into the federal project. Congress passes and the President
signs legislation for the project, usually as part of a periodic Water Resources
Development Act.
The State Legislature passes and the Governor signs legislation authorizing
State participation in the project, incorporating specific language referencing
federal authorization.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 417

The project is constructed. After

CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION ACT OF 2008
construction is complete, the project
California Water Code Section 9611. finishes the closeout phase. USACE
prepares an Operation and Maintenance
The Sacramento-San Joaquin River Flood Management
Manual for the project unit.
System comprises all of the following:
(a) The facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control as that USACE and the Board execute a
plan may be amended pursuant to this part. standard agreement transferring
responsibility for operations,
(b) Any existing dam, levee, or other flood management
maintenance, repair, and rehabilitation
facility that is not part of the State Plan of Flood Control if
to the State.
the board determines, upon recommendation of the depart-
ment, that the facility does one or more of the following: The Board and appropriate local
maintaining agency or DWR execute a
(1) Provides significant systemwide benefits for managing
standard agreement, further transferring
flood risks within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley.
these responsibilities to the
(2) Protects urban areas within the Sacramento- maintaining agency.
San Joaquin Valley.
In addition, the Central Valley Flood
(c) Upon completion of the Central Valley Flood Protection
Protection Act of 2008 authorizes the
Plan pursuant to this part, the department may identify and Board to add facilities to the SPFC
propose to the board additional structural and nonstruc- directly. Such facilities would need
tural facilities that may become facilities of the State Plan to meet other legal requirements,
of Flood Control, consistent with the Central Valley Flood including, but not limited, to the lol
Protection Plan. The board may add those facilities to the California Environmental Quality Act,
State Plan of Flood Control based on a determination show- Water Resources Law of 1945, and
ing how the facility accomplishes the purposes identified in Flood Control Law of 1946.
subdivision (b).
(d) For the purposes of subdivision (c), facilities that may 4.4 Refining Flood
become facilities of the State Plan of Flood Control include
bypasses, floodway corridors, flood plain storage, or other
System Investments
projects that expand the capacity of the flood protection While the CVFPP establishes an overall vi-
system in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley to provide sion for Central Valley flood risk management,
flood protection. detailed feasibility studies are needed to further
refine and define specific improvements that
support the CVFPP Goals. Two proposed State
feasibility studies for the Sacramento and San Joaquin river basins will focus on
defining a systemwide set of flood management improvements to the SPFC, begin-
ning with the physical elements included in the SSIA. Elements can be expected to
be refined and modified based on those two feasibility studies. This is especially true
for larger system elements that require more studies and feasibility evaluations to
better understand their costs and benefits and to reduce the level of uncertainty. The
feasibility studies are also needed for federal project appropriation.
To prepare the State feasibility studies, the State will first work with local agen-
cies to prepare regional flood management plans. These plans (see Section 4.4.1)
will include assessment of levees in each levee Flood Protection Zone (FPZ), will
identify reasonable and feasible solutions to remedy the areas needing repair, and
will include a regional financial framework. The State will use the regional plans
as foundational information and will integrate the plans with system improvement
PAGE 418 JUNE 2012

feasibility analyses to prepare the two basin-wide feasibility studies. These feasibil-
ity studies will be prepared in coordination with USACE and in conjunction with its
CVIFMS.
Figure 4-2 is a schematic presentation of the process outlined above, showing the
interconnection of regional flood management plans, State basin-wide feasibility
studies, and USACE CVIFMS. The majority of flood risk reduction project imple-
mentation will occur as a result of the State basin-wide feasibility studies. However,
implementation of some projects will continue while the feasibility studies
are prepared.
Define
Define and
and map
map
Flood
Flood Protection
Protection Zones
Zones
in the Central
Central Valley
Valley
Assess
problems in Identify
Flood Protection solutions
Zones
Prepare Regional Financing Plan USACE

State-led Central Valley
Basin-wide Integrated
Feasibility Flood
Prepare Regional Flood Management Studies Management
Plan using Flood Protection Zone Study
information in the region
Implementation of Flood Risk Reduction Projects
KEY: USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Figure 4-2. Planning and Implementing Flood Risk Reduction Projects
The section below further discusses the regional flood management plans,
State basin-wide feasibility studies, and USACE CVIFMS.
4.4.1 Regional Flood Management Plans

To document site-specific flood system improvement needs and to involve local
agencies in developing local investment strategies, the State will work with local
entities and engage other interested stakeholders to define local flood system
improvements that support the SSIA. This work will be site-specific for individual
river reaches and likely begin with each FPZ within the potential implementation
regions. FPZs are the smallest planning unit for gathering and organizing data and
evaluating the costs and benefits of proposed flood management actions as they
relate to overall systemwide improvements. Flood protection needs within the FPZs
of an implementation region will be aggregated into regional flood management
needs that, in turn, will be used to formulate regional projects/programs and
associated feasibility analyses.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 419

The regional plans will be prepared with participation of local

maintaining agencies, regional flood management agencies,
ACT OF 2008 counties and cities within the region, and agricultural and envi-
California Water Code Section 8201 ronmental interests. The role of counties and cities in the plan-
(a) A local agency may prepare a local
ning process is important because they are required to update
their general plans to incorporate information used to prepare
plan of flood protection in accordance with
the regional plans. DWR will participate in the planning pro-
this chapter.
cess, will provide any available information, and may provide
(d) Plans prepared pursuant to this chap- financial assistance for preparing the regional plans, if funds are
ter, within the Sacramento-San Joaquin available.
Valley as defined by Section 9602, shall be
consistent with the Central Valley Flood Based on analyses conducted for selected projects in a region, a
Protection Plan pursuant to Section 9612. regional financing strategy will also be prepared and will iden-
tify potential federal, State, and local cost-sharing. The cost-
sharing formula may differ based on the nature of the flood risk
reduction needs of and systemwide benefits achieved in each region. The regional
analyses will be combined with the regional financing plan to form a regional flood
management plan. To implement SPFC improvements from a systemwide perspec-
tive, evaluations will consider monetary and nonmonetary benefits on a regional
basis, to be updated as system improvements are defined over time.
The State and its partners will need to develop benefit-cost analyses by focusing on
different project purposes in various reaches of the system. For example, in urban
areas the focus would likely be on flood risk reduction, while in rural-agricultural ar-
eas the focus would be on flood risk reduction supported by floodplain management
and improved ecosystem function and sustainability. The State proposes to provide
a greater cost-share at the local level for environmentally beneficial projects, such
as setback levees. The State will allow local rural entities to cover their cost-shares
with in-kind services, agricultural conservation easements, and other compatible ele-
ments.
Development of regional flood management plans and formulation of specific capi-

tal improvement projects will continue after completion of the 2012 CVFPP. This
plan development process will coordinate with other overlapping planning efforts
by identifying common goals and pursuing opportunities to collaborate and reduce
potential conflicts with these other efforts. The information gathered for the regional
flood management plans will be used to help develop the State basin-wide feasibility
studies scheduled for completion by 2017.
A review of areas protected by facilities of the SPFC initially identifies regions with
varying characteristics (see Figure 4-3). Ultimately, more or fewer regions may be
used, depending on organization and preferences of local entities.
PAGE 420 JUNE 2012

Figure 4-3. Central Valley Flood Protection Plan Implementation Regions based on
Flood Protection Zones
JUNE 2012 PAGE 421

4.4.2 Assisting Local Agencies in Land Use Planning

The Central Valley Flood Protection Act requires each city and county within the
Sacramento- San Joaquin Valley to amend its general plan to include flood-related
information gathered for and presented in the CVFPP, within 24 months of the Board
adopting the CVFPP. To assist local agencies in complying with the law, DWR will
prepare the following information and make it available to local agencies:
Information gathered and used in the CVFPP.
CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION Maps and geographic information system (GIS) data
ACT OF 2008 used to generate maps in the CVFPP and related
documents.
California Government Code 65302.9
Levee inspection data and completed geotechnical
(a) Within 24 months of the adoption of the
assessment results of SPFC facilities and related non-
Central Valley Flood Protection Plan by the
SPFC facilities, where data are available.
Central Valley Flood Protection Board pur-
suant to Section 9612 of the Water Code, Water surface elevations for 100-year and 200-year
each city and county within the Sacra- flood events.
mento-San Joaquin Valley, shall amend its 100-year and 200-year inundation maps of the areas
General Plan protected by the facilities of the SPFC.
(b) To assist each city or county in com- Criteria for demonstrating an urban level of flood
plying with this section, the Central Valley protection, including urban levee design criteria.
Flood Protection Board, the Department of
The information listed above will be made available, subject
Water Resources, and local flood agencies
to availability of funds, to local agencies upon request. DWR
shall collaborate with cities or counties by
has prioritized its work so that information needed for urban
providing them with information and other
areas is developed first and shared with local agencies. The
technical assistance. State proposes a planning process in which local agencies, with
assistance from DWR, will work together to prepare regional
flood management plans (see Section 4.4.1). The local land use
agencies are encouraged to actively participate in development of the regional flood
management plans. Participation of the agencies in regional planning combined with
specific information listed in this section will help local land use agencies to update
their general plans and any zoning considerations, as required by the law.
4.4.3 Central Valley Integrated Flood Management Study

The USACE CVIFMS is a feasibility study to evaluate flood management improve-
ments in the Central Valley from a federal perspective, and to provide a framework
for authorizing and implementing flood risk reduction projects in the Central Valley.
When completed, this feasibility study will ultimately be used
to determine the federal interest in implementing elements of
the CVFPP and identifying nonfederal responsibilities regard-
ACT OF 2008
ing changes to the SPFC. Through the CVIFMS, USACE
California Water Code Section 9615. is reviewing documents and providing technical and policy
For the purpose of preparing the plan, level input, joint data, information, and analytical tools for the
the department shall collaborate with the
CVFPP. The CVIFMS would integrate information and find-
ings from the two State basin-wide feasibility studies; USACE
United States Army Corps of Engineers
is conducting the CVIFMS, in partnership with DWR and the
PAGE 422 JUNE 2012

Board, under existing federal authorization for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River
Basins Comprehensive Study (USACE, 2002).
From a federal perspective, potential changes to existing facilities of the SPFC

should show a positive impact on the facilities, the people the facilities protect, and
the purposes of the facilities. Therefore, it is important to the State to work closely
with USACE to further analytically define and refine elements of the SSIA, and to
evaluate potential flood management, ecosystem restoration, and other related proj-
ect benefits to justify a strong federal interest in the SSIA. The State will continue to
work closely with USACE to examine opportunities to fully integrate processes and
analyses needed for preparing the State basin-wide feasibility studies with
the CVIFMS.
4.4.4 State Basin-Wide Feasibility Studies

As mentioned above, and as part of SSIA implementation, the State will initiate two
basin-wide feasibility studies. The primary purposes of these State-led feasibility
studies are to (1) develop a Locally Preferred Plan for consideration by USACE in
formulating and selecting a recommended plan and pursuing federal authorization,
(2) prepare environmental compliance evaluations, and (3) establish the States role
in project implementation. A benefit of these State-led feasibil-
ity studies is that the State can effectively contribute to, and
help accelerate, the federal feasibility study; if USACE is not FEASIBILITY STUDY COORDINATION
able to move forward with implementation, the State would be
poised to do so. As part of CVFPP implementation and de-
velopment of the 2017 update, the State will
History suggests that federal studies can be accomplished in continue to coordinate and engage with
a more efficient manner when there is (1) strong nonfederal federal partners on the State basin-wide
sponsor understanding of the federal project implementation feasibility studies, the CVIFMS, and other
process, (2) active nonfederal leadership and direction, and (3) related efforts.
a well-developed Locally Preferred Plan for use in the process.
The State feasibility studies will examine the options and ele-
ments included in the 2012 CVFPP to determine study feasibility and refine study
features/characteristics. The State feasibility studies will be accomplished in close
coordination and partnership with USACE; the CVIFMS, in particular, will follow
the federal milestone system, and will comply with the Economic and Environmen-
tal Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementa-
tion Studies (Water Resources Council, 1983). It is anticipated that the State feasi-
bility studies will establish a complete, well-developed Locally Preferred Plan in the
context of a federal feasibility study, and provide a solid foundation for initiation
of federal studies, as appropriate. Engagement with federal partners would occur
throughout the State feasibility studies period. State planning and technical analyses
will employ approaches consistent with federal practices, such that information can
be efficiently used in corresponding federal feasibility studies. Under this condition,
it is fully anticipated that the corresponding federal studies would incorporate infor-
mation developed by the State basin-wide feasibility studies, including the Locally
Preferred Plan.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 423

The State-led feasibility studies will integrate information presented in regional flood
management plans prepared by local agencies, and information, analyses, and evalu-
ations conducted as part of federal feasibility studies and the CVIFMS, as shown
in Figure 4-4. Upon adoption of the CVFPP, DWR intends to work closely with the
USACE Sacramento District to further examine opportunities for fully integrating
the basin-wide feasibility studies with CVIFMS.
Central Valley
2012 CVFPP Integrated Flood
Management Study
Regional USACE
Flood Plans: Feasibility Studies
Zone 1 Feasibility Study I

Region I
Zone 2
Flood Plan
Basin-wide Feasibility Study II
Zone 3 Feasibility Feasibility Study III
Zone 1
Studies Feasibility Study IV
Zone 2 Region II
Zone 3 Flood Plan
Zone 4 (Feasibility Study V, etc.)
(Region III Flood Plan,etc.)
2017 CVFPP
Update
Local, State,
and Federal
Appropriation
Implementation
KEY:
CVFPP = Central Valley Flood Protection Plan USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Figure 4-4. Preparing Basin-Wide Feasibility Studies Leading to Implementation
4.4.5 Program Coordination,

Communication, and Integration
Development and implementation of the CVFPP requires continued coordination,
communication, and integration with other flood and water management and eco-
system enhancement programs in the planning area. These programs include, but are
not limited to, other State and federal efforts such as the San Joaquin River Restora-
PAGE 424 JUNE 2012

tion Program, Bay-Delta Conservation Plan, Delta Stewardship Council Delta Plan,
Delta Protection Commission Economic Sustainability Plan, Statewide Flood
Management Planning Program, USACE CVIFMS, and other programs. The State
has a strong interest in coordinating and, when feasible, achieving integration of
flood risk management with water supply reliability enhancement, environmental
restoration, and other multiresource benefits.
Effective integration across resource categories and planning efforts means that all
of the programs and projects, when implemented, work together to achieve the key
goals of the various programs in a cost-effective and appropriately prioritized
sequence, and do not cancel intended benefits. It is recognized, however, that effec-
tive integration of planning among many programs for multiple benefits is a signifi-
cant challenge. Carrying that integration across multiple major planning efforts is
difficult and complex. The sheer complexity of the various planning processes, as
well as gaps in understanding of how they may work together; make it difficult to
define effective and integrated fixes at a systemwide level. Contributing to the inte-
gration challenge are competition for available funding and the competing priorities
of involved agencies and interest groups with different views and measures of what
constitutes success.
With these challenges in mind, it is also recognized that coordination, communica-

tion, and integration across a number of programs and projects also present oppor-
tunities for collaboration, minimizing duplication, reducing costs, and identifying
other opportunities. The State recommends taking the following steps (as well as
other similar steps) to achieve, to a large extent, integration and implement projects
and programs in a coordinated fashion:
The integration of flood management with other resource management
activities is best achieved during project planning and on-the-ground activi-
ties. In executing the CVFPP, the State proposes to work with local agencies
to prepare regional flood management plans. Preparation of the regional
plans will include examining opportunities for integrating of flood manage-
ment with water management and ecosystem restoration and to coordinate
with other agencies relevant activities in the region.
At the high level planning, the flood management activities are incorporated
and tied with the broad environmental enhancement activities in the CVFPP.
In addition, through reservoir operation activities (F-CO and F-BO) flood
and water management activities are also integrated.
During preparation of systemwide feasibility studies and project implemen-
tation, standardized, well-documented analytical tools will be employed to
evaluate performance with regard to key resource categories. For example,
DWR is working with the State Water Project, Yuba County Water Agency,
USACE, and National Weather Service-River Forecast Center to develop
F-CO for Lake Oroville and New Bullards Bar. The reservoir operation
model developed for the F-CO can be enhanced and also used for water
operations, hence integrating flood and water operations of the reservoirs.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 425

The State supports investing in no-regrets programs and actions that

clearly enhance system resiliency, integrate programs and resources, and
preserve flexibility for future generations. Actions that fall into this category
may include the following:
Acquisition of agricultural conservation easements where com-
patible with local land use plans (especially in deep floodplains
adjacent to existing flood conveyance channels).
Expansion of existing river and bypass channels through levee set-
backs, creation of new flood bypass channels, and development of
wildlife and fisheries habitats in the bypass system, creating open
space and integrating with recreation activities.
Isolation, stabilization, or removal of mercury and other heavy
metals, polychlorinated biphenyls, and other long-lasting ecosys-
tem contaminants within the State flood management system to
improve channel conveyance and water quality and fishery habitat.
D
evelopment of new maintenance practices and institutional
frameworks, such as corridor management planning and the Con-
servation Strategy, to facilitate long-term integrated management
of the system that effectively serves public safety, water manage-
ment, and ecosystem needs.
At the feasibility study level for specific projects, reasonable opportunities

will be carefully evaluated for integrating multiple objectives into project
design. During feasibility studies, DWR and its implementation partnering
agencies will conduct system impact analyses for all significant resources
categories, and will consult with all interested agencies and stakeholders
before finalizing projects for execution.
At the systemwide level, major implementation activities will continue to be
coordinated with other ongoing programs in the planning area.
4.4.6 Process for Updating the Central Valley

Updates to the CVFPP will be prepared by DWR and its partner agencies (including
USACE, the Board, and local agencies) every five years. Following adoption of this
initial CVFPP by the Board in mid-2012, work will continue toward the first update
of the CVFPP, due in 2017. Work required for the first, and each subsequent, update
will generally follow the five-year cycle shown in Figure 4-5.
Each update will build on the previous CVFPP and will describe accomplishments
since the prior version; will identify results of subsequent technical analyses; will
highlight changes in approaches, projects, and programs; and will describe near-term
implementation of projects (or components of longer-term projects) that can be ex-
pected to be completed before the next update. Therefore, level of detail is expected
to increase from version to version as feasibility studies and implementation prog-
ress. Because of the five-year update cycle, the CVFPP will be a living document
that adapts to progress, changing conditions, new information, and available funding.
PAGE 426 JUNE 2012

Development of the Financing Plan for the CVFPP will be the major deliverable in
the first year (portions of 2012 and 2013) following adoption of the 2012 CVFPP.
The 2017 update of the CVFPP will be reviewed by the Board for overall consisten-
cy with the adopted 2012 CVFPP, and the cycle will be repeated for the 2022 update.
The 2017 CVFPP update will be prepared in close coordination with USACE.
CYCLE OF
Year 5 Year 1
FE
Public Draft Update Need
EDBACK
DBACK
Final Draft Assessment

Plan Adopted Scope of the Plan
FEE
Financial
Strategy
Implementation
Year 4 of Flood Risk
Recommenda- Reduction Year 2
tions & Policies Update Tools
Development Projects Plan
Complete Studies Formulation
and Analyses
Year 3
Conduct Feasibility
Analyses
Risk Assessment
IN V
EST M ENT
Figure 4-5. Five-Year Cycle for Investment and Central Valley Flood Protection Plan
4.5 2007 2011 Accomplishments and

Near-Term Priority Actions
(2012 through 2017)
4.5.1 Accomplishments
Since the passage of Propositions 1E and 84 in November 2006, DWR has been
working with USACE and local agencies to improve flood management within areas
protected by facilities of the SPFC. These accomplishments are considered part of
the SSIA. Major accomplishments to date are summarized below.

Conducted 15 flood emergency exercises, including the Golden Guardian
Statewide Flood Exercise
Added about 50 flood forecasting and water supply gaging sites
Developed a Flood Emergency Response Information System
Developed F-CO program for Yuba-Feather River
JUNE 2012 PAGE 427

The Golden Guardian Statewide Flood Updated hydrology for Central Valley streams
Exercise Series was first implemented Stockpiled 240,000 tons of rocks in the Delta for
in 2004 and has become a statewide emergency response
exercise series conducted to coordinate
Enhanced environmental integration in emergency
flood emergency preparation, response,
response activities, including an emergency response
and recovery by local, State, and federal exercise with environmental resource and
governmental entities and private sector regulatory agencies
and volunteer organizations. The goal of
the Golden Guardian Exercise Series is to Flood System Operations and Maintenance
build on the lessons learned from this and Repaired over 120 critical levee erosion sites
subsequent exercises, as well as real-
Proactively repaired over 220 levee sites
world events. Golden Guardian is currently
the largest statewide flood emergency Removed three million cubic yards of sediment from
exercise program of its kind in the country. the bypasses
Rehabilitated seven flood system structures
The Golden Guardian 2011 Full-Scale Developed and began implementing, in partnership
Exercise was conducted in May 2011 and with resource and regulatory agencies, environmental
was based on a major past California initiatives, including the Corridor Management
flood. The exercise focused on Californias Strategy and Small Erosion Repair Program
strategy in preparing for and responding to
Initiated and coordinated the Interagency Flood
a catastrophic flood in the inland region of Management Collaborative Program
the State. Over 5,000 local, regional, State,
and federal responders participated in Floodplain Management
various events throughout the three-day Prepared voluntary flood-related Building Standards
exercise. Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24,
Parts 2 and 2.5) for single-family residential
The Golden Guardian 2013 exercise will be occupancy groups R-3 and R-3.1 for adoption by
based on a major Bay Area earthquake, cities and counties
providing an opportunity to assess Sent flood risk notification letters to 300,000 affected
emergency operations plans as they property owners in the Central Valley in 2010
relate to potential effects on the flood and 2011
management system in the Sacramento-
Mapped Central Valley Levee Flood
San Joaquin Delta.
Protection Zones
Flood Risk Assessment, Engineering and Feasibility, and Permitting

Collected topographic data and light detection and ranging (or LiDAR) data
for 9,000 square miles along the flood system
Conducted engineering and geotechnical evaluations for urban and
nonurban levees
Developed a comprehensive medium-scale GIS data set of riparian
vegetation for the Central Valley
Assessed major fish passage barriers within the Systemwide Planning Area
PAGE 428 JUNE 2012

Evaluated potential floodplain restoration opportunity areas throughout the

Systemwide Planning Area
Developed a statewide policy framework and approach for Regional
Advance Mitigation Planning (RAMP)
Catalogued and summarized conservation
objectives from 30 conservation planning
efforts that overlap the Systemwide Planning
Area
Prepared the public draft Conservation
Framework
Implemented 12 Flood Corridor Program
projects in the Central Valley, providing over
4,000 acres of habitat conservation and over
500 acres of agricultural land conservation
Prepared the State Plan of Flood Control
Descriptive Document, 2010 Geotechnical improvements to levees in the Pocket Area
Prepared the Flood Control System of Sacramento
Status Report, 2011
Prepared the Public Draft 2012 CVFPP
Capital Improvement Projects

DWR, USACE, and local agencies have been working on capital improvement
projects to upgrade the State-federal flood management system in the Central Valley,
including the following areas:
American River Common Features Project, to provide an urban level of
flood protection to the following areas:
American River downstream from Folsom Dam
Sacramento River downstream from the American River
Natomas Basin
Folsom Dam Modifications (as part of the Folsom Dam
Joint Federal Project)
Marysville Ring Levee Improvement Project
Mid-Valley Area Levee Reconstruction Project
South Sacramento Streams Project
Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority, Feather River Levee
Improvement Project, Yuba County
Three Rivers Levee Improvement Authority, Upper Yuba River Levee
Improvement Project, Yuba County
Levee District 1, Star Bend levee setback on the Feather River,
Sutter County
JUNE 2012 PAGE 429

Reclamation District 2103, Bear River North Levee Rehabilitation Project,

Sutter, Yuba and Placer counties
Reclamation District 17, 100-Year Seepage Area Project, San Joaquin River,
San Joaquin County
West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, Capital Outlay,
City of West Sacramento
Repair of two Yolo Bypass east bank levee slips in West Sacramento
(underway)
DWR has also been working with USACE, the Board, and local agencies to
evaluate the potential feasibility of the following projects and efforts in the
Central Valley. These activities will continue through the next phase of implemen-
tation (2012 to 2017) to the extent feasible. The State will work with USACE and
local agencies to incorporate ecosystem restoration in these feasibility studies:
American River Common Features General Reevaluation Report
Lower San Joaquin River Feasibility Study, investigating actions to achieve
a 200-year level flood protection and opportunities for floodplain restoration,
recreational enhancements, and ecosystem restoration for the City of
Stockton and surrounding areas
Merced County Streams Group investigation, evaluating options to increase
the level of flood protection from a 50-year event to 200-year event within
the Merced urban area
Sutter Basin Feasibility Study, improving flood protection for communities
in Sutter- Butte Basin
West Sacramento General Reevaluation Report, providing a minimum
200-year level of protection for the City of West Sacramento
West Stanislaus County-Orestimba Creek Feasibility Study, evaluating
feasible flood protection alternatives for the City of Newman and
surrounding area
Woodland/Lower Cache Creek Feasibility Study
Yuba Basin Project General Reevaluation Report, increasing
ACT OF 2008
the level of flood protection for the Yuba River Basin communi-
California Water Code Section 9616 (b) ties of Marysville, Linda, Olivehurst, and Arboga
The plan shall include a prioritized list Mid-Valley Area Levee Reconstruction Project
of recommended actions to reduce flood
South Sacramento County Streams Project study, increasing
risks and meet the objectives described in flood protection for the urbanized area of South Sacramento
subdivision (a). County
PAGE 430 JUNE 2012

4.5.2 Near-Term Priority Actions

Between adoption of the 2012 CVFPP and its first update in 2017, priority actions
include the following (organized by flood management programs):
Flood Emergency Response Program

Develop improved flood forecasting and notifications for rural-agricultural
areas of the Central Valley, and provide assistance to local agencies in
preparing for and responding to flood emergencies
Invest in additional monitoring gages and forecasting points to facilitate
timely and accurate dissemination of flood information, particularly for
rural-agricultural areas subject to more frequent flooding
To the extent funding is available, propose a State grant program to assist
rural local agencies throughout the Central Valley preparing flood emergency
responses plans for their jurisdictions, and to develop appropriate regional
communication tools and processes for flood emergency response operations
Continue implementation of F-CO of reservoirs and initiate F-BO programs,
where feasible
Provide flood system information to local flood emergency responders
Formalize procedures for enhanced inspection and maintenance
Flood System Operations and Maintenance Program/

Rural Agricultural Areas
Work with rural-agricultural communities to develop rural levee
repair criteria
Repair erosion sites throughout the flood system that were identified by the
2011 inspection program, before these sites further degrade the integrity of
the flood control system and require costly repair
Repair known and documented critical problems, prioritized based on
flood risks
Provide all-weather access roads on levee crowns for quick response to
flood emergencies
Implement rural levee projects that are consistent with the SSIA, are ready to
proceed, and are shown to be feasible
Floodplain Risk Management Program

Prepare new flood hazard identification and notification information for
rural-agricultural community planners and local officials using updated hy-
drology and hydraulic studies
Work with FEMA to actively engage the agency in floodplain management
in the Central Valley, including funding for floodproofing homes and struc-
tures in floodplains, relocating structures and homes from deep floodplains,
and developing a special insurance program for structures located in flood-
plains that play a major role in promoting the vibrant agricultural economy
in rural areas of the Central Valley
JUNE 2012 PAGE 431

Flood System Risk Assessment, Engineering, Feasibility, and Permitting

Launch a major effort to coordinate FloodSAFE activities with all levels of
USACE, and with Congress to refine USACE feasibility study processes
under the two State basin-wide feasibility studies, for the purpose of
facilitating timely federal cost-sharing of flood management projects in
the Central Valley
Perform two basin-wide feasibility studies: one for the Sacramento River
Basin and one for the San Joaquin River Basin
Initiate feasibility studies and designs for ecosystem projects that are consis-
tent with the SSIA, are ready to proceed, and are shown to be feasible, such
as the Fremont Weir fish passage project
Complete the Conservation Strategy
Develop a comprehensive fine-scale GIS dataset of riparian vegetation for

the Central Valley
On completion of the State basin-wide feasibility studies and refinement of

the projects, prepare a long-term implementation plan for presentation in the
2017 CVFPP
Complete the Financing Plan for the CVFPP in 2013
Prepare the 2017 update of the CVFPP, identifying flood management
improvements to be made in the subsequent five-year cycle
Continue engagement with partners and stakeholders
Evaluate the feasibility of initiating a program to provide post-flood recovery
assistance to rural-agricultural areas
Develop a regional assessment for RAMP
Provide programmatic permitting for operations and maintenance of the
flood management system
DWR will continue working with local agencies to implement flood management activities
PAGE 432 JUNE 2012

Flood Risk Reductions Projects Program

Continue to design and construct projects that are consistent with the SSIA,
are ready to proceed, and are shown to be feasible, such as levee improve-
ments for high-risk existing urban and adjacent urbanizing areas
Implement small community projects that are consistent with the SSIA, are
ready to proceed, and are shown to be feasible
Acquire lands, rights-of-way, and easements to implement systemwide
projects, including extending and expanding the bypass system and
ecosystem restoration components, as soon as studies to further refine the
locations of the lands to be acquired are completed
Work with local agencies to implement rural-agricultur-
al area flood management activities that are consistent PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATES
with the SSIA, ready to proceed, and are shown to be
feasible Cost estimates presented in the plan
are only conceptual and not intended
Work with local agencies and USACE in completing
for use for a specific project. Actual
regional flood management plans with USACE to
implementation costs will likely be
prepare basin-wide feasibility studies
higher than estimates in the 2012 CVFPP
New Bullards Bar Outlet Modifications Project because of future price increases and the
incremental nature of plan implementation.
4.6 Estimated Costs and
Time to Implement
Section 3 presented cost information for the SSIA. Discussion in this section focuses
on the investment and implementation schedule for the SSIA.
4.6.1 State Systemwide Investment

Approach Cost Estimates
Table 4-1 summarizes costs to implement various elements of the SSIA.
Table 4-1. State Systemwide Investment Approach Cost Estimates by Element

LOW HIGH
ELEMENT ESTIMATE ESTIMATE
($ Millions) ($ Millions)
System Improvements $5,140 to $6,500
Urban Improvements $5,500 to $6,700
Rural-Agricultural Improvements $1,080 to $1,180
Small Community Improvements $690 to $690
Residual Risk Management $1,510 to $1,860
Total $13,920 to $16,910
JUNE 2012 PAGE 433

Table 4-2. State Systemwide Investment Approach Cost Estimates by Region

LOW HIGH
REGION ESTIMATE ESTIMATE
($ Millions) ($ Millions)
1 - Upper Sacramento Region $480 to $610
2 - Mid-Sacramento Region $860 to $1,050
3 - Feather River Region $3,040 to $3,690
4 - Lower Sacramento Region $5,390 to $6,500
5 - Delta North Region $1,770 to $2,060
6 - Delta South Region $580 to $740
7 - Lower San Joaquin Region $730 to $930
8 - Mid - San Joaquin Region $190 to $250
9 - Upper San Joaquin Region $890 to $1,080
Total $13,920 to $16,910
These costs are planning level estimates; they are based on 2011 price levels and
will differ in the future. The estimated distribution of costs among implementation
regions is shown in Table 4-2.
The total cost of the SSIA is estimated to be between $14 billion and $17 billion. As
shown in Figure 4-6, the SSIA invests approximately equally in urban flood protec-
SSIA Investments bytion and
SSIA system improvements; this will promote opportunities for flood system
Elements
operational flexibility, ecosystem enhancement, open space, and expansion of the
(in $million)
flood-carrying capacity of the Central Valley flood
management system.
Residual Risk Over 23 percent of the total investment will be for the com-
Management
$1,500 to bination of rural-agricultural areas, small communities, and
$1,900 residual risk management, primarily designed to improve
Rural-Agricultural/ flood risk reduction in rural-agricultural areas. More than
Small Community System one third (38 percent) of estimated costs are for the Lower
Improvements Improvements
$1,800 to $1,900 $5,100 to $6,500 Sacramento Region, where flood risks and potential threats
to lives and economic losses are of the greatest concern.
Full implementation of the SSIA will take 20 to 25 years.

Urban As shown in Section 4.5, implementation has already begun
Improvements for some features of the SSIA through programs such as the
$5,500 to $6,700
Early Implementation Projects Program, which began in
2007. Additional physical improvements will begin in the
next cycle of investment (2012 through 2017) and some will
be completed beyond 2017. A consideration in formulat-
Figure 4-6. State Systemwide Investment
ing the SSIA has been the time that would be required to
Approach Investments by Element ($ millions) implement the approach. It is estimated that most features of
the SSIA could be implemented in the next 15 to 20 years,
assuming State and federal funding will be available in a
timely manner.
PAGE 434 JUNE 2012

4.6.2 Implementation Phasing

Some elements of the SSIA are more complicated and will take longer to develop
and implement than others. Phasing of system improvements will help accommodate
the timing of project planning, design, land acquisition, partnering, etc., as well as
funding availability. Implementation phasing is not, however, intended to expedite
implementation of some SSIA elements at the expense of other elements. Progress
will be made with implementation of all elements during each phase of program
implementation. Each five-year CVFPP update will refine implementation for
subsequent phases.
Phase I will generally occur within five years (2012 to 2017) of CVFPP
adoption. DWR will begin working on priority improvements, such as
improved flood forecasting and emergency response, land use planning
initiatives, enhanced operations and maintenance practices, and flood risk
reduction projects. Physical on-the-ground improvements will focus on
continued efforts to improve flood risk reduction in urban areas, develop
small community and rural flood risk reduction projects, repair erosion sites,
and implement ecosystem improvements, where feasible. The Conservation
Strategy will be developed, and feasibility evaluations and land acquisitions
for expansion of the bypasses will be initiated. A more detailed list of activi-
ties for Phase I is presented in Section 4.5.
Phase II will include broad flood system improvements with an emphasis on
improving the operational flexibility of the flood management system. Work
will include F-BO of reservoirs and construction of levee setbacks. Work on
modifying flood control structures, such as weirs, gates, and pumping plants,
will be undertaken to further add flexibility to flood system operations.
Work to reduce flood risks in urban areas, rural-agricultural areas, and small
communities will continue. Design and construction of levee setbacks and
bypasses will be initiated. Improvements for rural-agricultural areas will also
be initiated, where feasible.
Phase III will include completing system improvements with an emphasis
on reducing peak flood stages throughout large areas of the system. Many
Phase III activities require a much longer period of planning and design
preparation. Although these activities will be initiated in early phases, during
Phase III, implementation of major system improvement elements, such as
expansion of bypasses, construction of new bypasses, and implementation of
the Conservation Strategy, will be completed.
Each phase of implementation will generally require the reevaluation of components

of the SSIA, including prioritizing policies, programs, and project elements that
provide the greatest benefit to public safety, environmental quality, and Californias
economy. Work on all phases will occur at the same time, but the emphasis changes.
For example, emphasis during the first five years will be on foundation improve-
ments. During the following five years, the emphasis will be on implementing im-
provements in Phase II, with emphasis on increasing flood system flexibility. Priori-
tizing investments in facilities will also be based on population and assets at risk.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 435

Phased implementation recognizes that some projects are more complicated and re-
quire more time to complete, and that the need for some projects is more immediate
than for others. Phased implementation also allows time for incremental funding and
for CVFPP updates to incorporate improved understanding of the flood system over
time. Each five-year update of the CVFPP will track ongoing and completed projects
and programs and refine subsequent implementation actions.
As implementation phasing continues and elements of the SSIA are completed, the
benefit-cost ratio of remaining elements may decrease; this is because project ele-
ments with higher benefit-cost ratios will likely be implemented earlier. It is im-
portant to recognize that the SSIA is an integrated approach to flood management,
and that each element contributes to the overall goals of the CVFPP and should be
holistically implemented. Accordingly, federal and State representatives will need to
work together to quickly develop and gain approval for a program implementation
process that accommodates incremental implementation of project elements toward
the overall flood risk reduction and ecosystem restoration goals of the SSIA.

4.7 Financing Strategy for
ACT OF 2008 Implementing State
California Water Code Section 9616 (a) Systemwide Investment
The plan shall Approach
(13) Provide a feasible, comprehensive, and
Implementation of the CVFPP began in January 2007 when
long-term financing plan for implementing bond funding became available. Since that time, DWR has
the plan. invested in prudent Central Valley flood risk reduction proj-
ects and programs in advance of the CVFPP. For example,
The CVFPP includes a flood risk reduction improvements in maintenance, emergency response, and repair
financing strategy founded on of critically eroding levees, floodplain delineation, levee inves-
the following: tigations, and upgraded levees for urban areas were important
Flood management is a shared responsibil- investments, integral to the SSIA, that could be made while
ity among federal, State, and local agen- the CVFPP was being prepared. The strategy for investing in
cies, with the cost of improvement shared projects that are ready to move forward, are feasible, and are
by all partners considered to be consistent with the CVFPP Goals will continue
Interest and ability of the partnering agen- during the next five years while detailed, basin-wide feasibility
cies to participate and fund the projects studies are completed. Implementation is based on phasing
Broad evaluation of system benefits prioritizing funding for the most critical actions, while setting
the foundation for flood system improvement and developing
Strong interest in achieving greater flood
more detailed feasibility studies to support the SSIA.
system reliability and sustainability
Commitment to improve system operations The Central Valley Flood Protection Act of 2008 requires DWR
and maintenance to prepare a Financing Plan for the CVFPP. Following adop-
Need to continue to manage residual risk tion of the CVFPP in 2012, DWR will prepare a framework for
financing projects at a regional level. DWR will use the infor-
Commitment to conservation and enhance-
ment of environmental quality, especially
mation gathered from preparation of the framework to prepare
remnant riparian vegetation that grows in the Financing Plan for the CVFPP that will guide investment in
channels and on levees of Central Valley flood risk management in the Central Valley during the next 20
rivers and streams years. The Financing Plan will be available in 2013, after adop-
PAGE 436 JUNE 2012

tion of 2012 CVFPP. The Financing Plan is critical to implementation, given the
uncertainty in State, federal, and local agency budgets and cost-sharing capabilities.
The following sections describe preparation of near-term and long-term financing

plans for the CVFPP.
4.7.1 Funding for State Systemwide

Investment Approach Implementation
A mix of federal, State, and local funds will be needed to implement the SSIA.
Funding sources will vary according to the type of project or program, beneficiaries,
availability of funds, urgency, and other factors. Cost-sharing among State, federal,
and local agencies may also change depending on project objectives and agency
interests. A legislative requirement for Proposition 1E funds is to maximize, to the
extent feasible, federal and local cost-sharing in flood manage-
ment projects. Cost-sharing rules are governed by federal and California Water Code Section 12585.7
State laws, regulations, and policies, which continue to evolve identifies the State cost-share of nonfeder-
over time. The geographic extent and magnitude of project al capital costs for flood management proj-
benefits must be evaluated to identify potential beneficiaries on ects. The State normally pays 50 percent
a regional or systemwide scale. The intent of the CVFPP is to of the nonfederal cost-share, but will pay
support equitable distribution of project costs among beneficia- up to 20 percent more (for a maximum of 70
ries, encourage projects that provide benefits outside their im- percent of the nonfederal cost-share) if the
mediate locales, and help achieve added flexibility in the SPFC. project makes significant contributions to
The State proposes to place a priority on funding and providing
other objectives, including the following:
a greater cost-share for flood management improvement proj-
Enhancement, protection, and restora-
ects that provide multiple benefits. tion of endangered species and riparian,
aquatic, or other important habitats
Table 4-1 shows the funding required to implement various
elements of the SSIA, and the specific flood management Open space
programs established to successfully implement the SSIA ele- Recreational opportunities
ments. Table 4-3 presents planning estimates for an equitable
Flood control for communities with median
distribution of expenditures among State, federal, and local household income less than 120 percent of
agencies over time. This distribution is based on a traditional the poverty level
cost-sharing formula, assuming local and federal interest in
Flood control for State transportation infra-
some of the SSIA elements, and recognizing that State, federal,
structure or water supply facilities
and local agency interests may vary depending on the type of
investment and results of feasibility studies. For example, Table
4-3 is based on local agencies having an interest in investing in
their respective urban areas and small communities to reduce flood risks, while they
may not be fully interested in investing in system improvement components of the
SSIA. Similarly, USACE may have an interest in investing in urban flood risk reduc-
tion while its interest in system improvement components may be limited to specific
actions such as ecosystem restoration. The State has an interest in implementing
a robust flood emergency response program and expects to fund most of the flood
emergency response activities proposed for implementation (some local cost-sharing
may be required). Cost-sharing for implementation of the SSIA will be refined dur-
ing feasibility studies and project implementation as additional project-level infor-
mation is gathered and the interests of the partnering agencies in elements of the
JUNE 2012 PAGE 437

SSIA are identified. In general, a cost-sharing arrangement among State, federal, and
local agencies will be needed to implement the projects.
It is expected that FEMA will play an active role in, and provide funding assistance
for, floodplain management activities formulated in the SSIA, including floodproof-
SSIA Investments by ing of rural-agricultural
Agency Level homes and structures, and relocating rural homes from
deep floodplains.
(in $million)
Figure 4-7 illustrates the potential allocation of SSIA costs to
State, federal, and local interests. Federal cost-sharing for capi-
Local
8% tal improvements will be based on results of feasibility studies,
$1,090 to and cost-sharing amounts will vary depending on the mix of
$1,310 purposes included in a project. For example, the federal cost-
share for ecosystem restoration projects can be as much as 50
to 65 percent for urban flood risk reduction projects. Costs that
State
46% do not qualify for federal cost-sharing include lands, easements,
Federal $6,400 to $7,700 relocations, operations and maintenance, and other costs that
46%
must be paid by nonfederal sponsors. Water supply, recreation,
$6,400 to $7,900
or other benefits included in flood risk reduction projects can
further modify federal cost-sharing. State cost-sharing of the
nonfederal costs also depends on the mix of project purposes.
Adequate funding from local agencies may require creation of
assessment districts to implement capital improvements or to
support effective, efficient, and improved system operations and
maintenance.
Figure 4-7. State Systemwide Investment
Approach Potential Cost-Sharing by Agency
(% and $ millions) 4.7.2 Financing of Central Valley Flood
Protection Plan (through 2017
and beyond)
STATE SYSTEMWIDE INVESTMENT
The State may have to rely more heavily on State bond fund-
APPROACH IMPLEMENTATION
ing to finance flood risk reduction projects until more federal
The State will need to present a General funding becomes available. Propositions 84 and 1E provided
Obligation Bond Law to voters to provide $4.9 billion for flood risk reduction in California, of which $3.0
an additional $4 to $5 billion to cover the to $3.3 billion could be used for flood risk reduction in areas
remaining States share of investment in protected by facilities of the SPFC. The remaining bond fund-
the flood reduction projects outlined
ing was allocated to statewide flood risk reduction (including
the Statewide Subventions Program, Stormwater Management
in SSIA.
Program, and flood risk reduction in the Delta). The State has
already invested $1.6 billion over the last five years. Addition-
ally, $1.5 billion to $1.7 billion of bond funding are already authorized and avail-
able for implementing flood risk reduction projects associated with the SPFC. It is
estimated that local agencies, through assessments, will provide their share of the
cost of about $0.5 billion from 2012 through 2017. DWR needs to work closely with
USACE and Congress to obtain at least $1 billion in appropriations through 2017.
The combination of State, federal, and local funding sources could provide about $3
billion for the next phase of implementation, until more robust federal financing is
available.
PAGE 438 JUNE 2012

Table 4-3. State Systemwide Investment Approach Range of Investments over Time ($ millions)
FLOOD SYSTEM
FLOOD FLOOD SYSTEM FLOODPLAIN ASSESSMENT, FLOOD RISK
FLOOD EMERGENCY OPERATIONS AND RISK ENGINEERING, REDUCTION TOTAL
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT FEASIBILITY, AND PROJECTS
PROGRAMS PERMITTING
Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High
State $64 $180 $99 $257 $1,032 $1,632
Federal 1 $160 $620 $780

20072011
Local $40 $450 $490
Subtotal $64 $180 $99 $457 $2,102 $2,902
State $130 to $140 $30 to $60 $30 to $40 $170 to $200 $1,140 to $1,300 $1,500 to $1,730
Federal $20 to $40 $70 to $90 $230 to $270 $1,190 to $1,340 $1,500 to $1,740
20122017
Local $10 to $10 $50 to $60 $140 to $220 $190 to $290
Subtotal $130 to $140 $60 to $110 $100 to $130 $450 to $530 $2,470 to $2,860 $3,210 to $3,770
2018 and Federal $130 to $160 $340 to $450 $590 to $740 $3,090 to $4,020 $4,150 to $5,370
Beyond Local $50 to $60 $120 to $150 $230 to $320 $410 to $530
Subtotal $290 to $310 $200 to $270 $400 to $570 $980 to $1,310 $5,950 to $7,780 $7,830 to $10,240
Federal $150 to $200 $410 to $540 $980 to $1,170 $4,900 to $5,980 $6,430 to $7,890
Total
Local $60 to $70 $210 to $250 $820 to $990 $1,090 to $1,310
Subtotal $480 to $510 $440 to $560 $600 to $800 $1,890 to $2,300 $10,520 to $12,740 $13,920 to $16,910
1
Federal and local project cost-shares for 2007 to 2011 were estimated.
Key:
JUNE 2012
PAGE 439
Table 4-4. State Investments over Time ($ millions)
FLOOD MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS 2007 11 2012 2017 2018 AND BEYOND TOTAL
Flood Emergency Response $64 $130 to $140 $290 to $310 $480 to $510
Flood System Operations and
$180 $30 to $60 $20 to $50 $230 to $290
Maintenance
Floodplain Risk Management $99 $30 to $40 $60 to $120 $190 to $260
Flood System Assessment,
Engineering, Feasibility, and $257 $170 to $200 $270 to $420 $700 to $880
Permitting
Flood Risk Reduction Projects $1,032 $1,140 to $1,300 $2,630 to $3,440 $4,800 to $5,770
System Improvement Costs $350 $495 to $565 $1,155 to $1,610 $1,995 to $2,525
Urban Improvement Costs $550 $545 to $620 $445 to $730 $1,535 to $1,900
Rural-Agricultural Area and Small
$132 $105 to $120 $1,040 to $1,095 $1,275 to $1,345
Community Improvement Costs
Total $1,632 $1,500 to $1,730 $3,270 to $4,340 $6,400 to $7,700
Beyond 2017, an additional $8 billion to $10 billion will be needed for implement-
ing the SSIA (See Table 4-3). Table 4-4 summarizes the States share of investments
to implement the SSIA, ranging from $6.4 to $7.7 billion. Considering that the State
already has authorized bond funding of over $3.0 to $3.3 billion to implement the
SSIA, an additional bond measure will be needed to cover the remaining $4 to $5
billion of the States share.
During the next five years (2013 through 2017), the State must work diligently with
its federal and local partners and the Legislature to overcome several challenges that
influence investment in flood risk reduction projects:
Limited State, federal, and local funding for cost-sharing
Changing regulations
Resource intensive and time consuming federal feasibility study processes
Need to fund ongoing implementation programs in addition to new
capital projects
These challenges are further discussed in the next sections.
4.8 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan

Approvals and Partner
Roles and Responsibilities
DWR and the Board are the State lead agencies for implementing the SSIA and pre-
paring the five-year CVFPP updates. It is the intent of the State that all major flood
management programs and projects in the Central Valley be planned and implement-
ed consistent with the vision, overall goals, and provisions of the evolving CVFPP.
Ensuring consistency between the CVFPP and its program elements and projects
over time will be the responsibility of the State through the continued partnership of
DWR and the Board.
PAGE 440 JUNE 2012
DWR will also work closely with USACE and the Board in developing the federal
CVIFMS and the two State basin-wide feasibility studies. In addition, the State is
partnering with USACE on a number of regional feasibility and post-authorization
scope-change investigations aimed at further modifying the flood management
system. Findings and recommendations from these regional investigations will be
included in the two State feasibility studies. Future modifications to the SPFC
originating frookaym the CVFPP will primarily be identified through the two State
feasibility studies.
Flood system improvement requires a coordinated partnership of federal, State, and

local agencies. DWR will continue its tradition of working closely with federal and
local partners to improve flood protection in the Central Valley.
4.9 Implementation Challenges and

Uncertainties
Many challenges and uncertainties arise during the implementation of any large-
scale program. These can include funding availability; federal and state government
budgetary issues; future economic activities and inflation; and changes to federal
programs, policies, and permitting.
Potential challenges and uncertainties are briefly described below:
Funding availability Implementation of SSIA will require an investment

of $14 billion to $17 billion, shared by federal, State, and local agencies.
Through Propositions 84 and 1E, the State has provided approximately
$5 billion for flood management activities, of which $3.0 billion are allo-
cated for implementing the SSIA. An additional $11 to $14 billion will be
needed during the next 20 years from federal, State, and local sources. It is
anticipated that another State bond measure will be required to augment fed-
eral and local agency funding. The amount of funding available from these
sources and timing of the funding are unknown at this time.
Federal, State, and local agencies budgetary issues Flood management
in California is a shared responsibility among federal, State, and local agen-
cies. These agencies face daunting challenges in balancing their budgets.
Shortfalls in State and local agency budgets and the federal deficit are issues
of great concern in planning for implementation of a program that solely
relies on cost-sharing from various level of government funding.
Economic activities Cost estimates presented in the CVFPP are based on
2011 level costs and, therefore, do not reflect future costs of implementa-
tion. Future costs and corresponding funding needs are, among other factors,
dependent on future inflation rates and the time needed to implement the
SSIA. Economic activities also influence competition and bidding conditions
among the contractors who would build the future improvements to
the SPFC.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 441

Federal programs, policies, and permitting Many federal programs,

policies, and permitting processes administered by USACE affect imple-
mentation of flood risk reduction programs. The following summarizes the
potential impacts of USACE policies and programs on implementation of
the SSIA:
S
ection 408 Under Section 408 of the Rivers and Harbors Act
of 1899, the Secretary of the Army has the authority to regulate
all significant modifications to a USACE civil works project. To
issue a Section 408 permit, the Secretary must determine that a
modification will not impair the usefulness of a federal project and
will not be injurious to the public interest. Thus, such modifica-
tions, when approved, will be subject to requirements established
by USACE related to acceptable design criteria and all associated
environmental constraints. Since 2006, USACE has developed
new, stringent guidance for Section 408 permitting authority,
which has resulted in significant cost and schedule impacts on
recent projects.
Section 104 Credit In May 2011, the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works (ASA-CW) declared that USACE will no
longer accept Section 104 credit applications. The ASA-CW indi-
cated that more recent crediting language included in the Water
Resources Development Act of 2007 was a more modern tool.
Furthermore, the change would address a USACE concern that
Section 104 credit letters, because they can be issued early in the
federal project implementation process, can encourage nonfederal
sponsors to distort the federal project formulation process and
pursue a credit that may be unlikely to materialize. Specifically,
USACE intends to use Section 221 of the Flood Control Act of
1970, as amended by Section 2003 of Water Resources Develop-
ment Act of 2007, which under current guidance requires comple-
tion of a federal decision document (USACE Chief of Engineers
Report) for a proposed project before to approval for credit. This
USACE guidance policy is likely to have a chilling effect on local
efforts to expedite urgently needed flood risk reduction projects,
which will ultimately affect schedules for project execution in the
Central Valley.
L
evee Vegetation Policy The current USACE levee vegetation
policy has impacted progress in implementing flood risk reduction
projects during the last three years, as sponsors have attempted to
comply with those requirements. The State believes that strict com-
pliance with the policy would be cost-prohibitive, disastrous for
the ecosystem, and detrimental to public safety because it redirects
funding from more critical problems unless a workable systemwide
variance process is established by USACE.
Feasibility Studies The current USACE feasibility study process
is a time-consuming and expensive way of implementing fragment-
PAGE 442 JUNE 2012

ed projects, and is inconsistent with the reality that many system-

wide projects have multiple sponsors, each with its own require-
ments. In the case of the SSIA, there is an opportunity for USACE
to work with the State to demonstrate federal interest in improving
flood protection through a systemwide approach. This approach
has the potential to benefit State, federal, and local interests.
Reservoir Operations Revisions to reservoir Water Control
Manuals will require USACE participation and/or review, as well
as appropriate environmental documentation. Changes to federal
projects will require action by Congress.
Technical challenges Many technical challenges also lie ahead.
Better understanding of climate change and development of the
appropriate adaptive strategy to address it, adequate technical
information for project decision making, and other similar issues
should be resolved over time as regional and basin-wide feasibility
evaluations move forward.
These issues can add considerably to costs, uncertainty, and time needed for project
implementation. FloodSAFE and other State officials plan to actively engage
USACE and Congress to resolve these issues to support future implementation of
the SSIA.
Many flood management challenges lie ahead and require diligent collaboration and
effective partnerships to be overcome. The CVFPP reflects the States effort to take
a balanced approach to achieving the objectives established in the Central Valley
Flood Protection Act of 2008 as well as the primary and supporting goals defined in
the initial phase of CVFPP formulation.
JUNE 2012 PAGE 443

PAGE 444 JUNE 2012

SECTION 5.0 | ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
5.0 ACRONYMS AND

ABBREVIATIONS
ASA-CW..................................Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
Board......................................Central Valley Flood Protection Board
cfs...........................................cubic feet per second
CMP........................................Corridor Management Plan
Conservation Strategy............Central Valley Flood System Conservation Strategy
CVFPP.....................................Central Valley Flood Protection Plan
CVIFMS..................................Central Valley Integrated Flood Management Study
Delta.......................................Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
DWR.......................................California Department of Water Resources
EAD........................................expected annual damages
ETL.........................................Engineering Technical Letter
F-BO........................................Forecast-Based Operations
F-CO........................................Forecast-Coordinated Operations
FEMA......................................Federal Emergency Management Agency
FloodSAFE..............................FloodSAFE California
FPZ.........................................Flood Protection Zone
Framework Agreement...........Californias Central Valley Flood System Improvement
Framework Agreement
ft.............................................feet
GIS..........................................geographic information system
HEC-FDA.................................USACE Hydrologic Engineering Centers Flood
Damage Analysis
LCM........................................Life Cycle Management
PGL.........................................Policy Guidance Letter
Proposition 1E........................Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention
Bond Act of 2006
Proposition 84.........................Safe Drinking Water, Water Quality and Supply,
Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2006
RAMP.....................................Regional Advance Mitigation Planning
Reclamation............................U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation
SPA.........................................Systemwide Planning Area
SPFC.......................................State Plan of Flood Control
SSIA........................................State Systemwide Investment Approach
State.......................................State of California
USACE....................................U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
JUNE 2012 PAGE 51

PAGE 5-2 JUNE 2012

APPENDIX A:
Central Valley Flood Protection Board Adoption
Resolution 2012-25, Amending and Adopting the
2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, June 2012
Resolution No. 2012-25
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY
CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION BOARD
PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 2012-25
PROVIDING THE BOARDS VISION FOR AND
ADOPTION OF THE 2012 CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION PLAN
AND PROVIDING A FRAMEWORK FOR INTERPRETATION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLAN
JUNE 2012
HISTORY:
A. WHEREAS, The history of the Sacramento Valley flood system is chronicled by Robert
Kelley in Battling the Inland Sea. The earliest levees in the Sacramento River basin were
originally constructed by landowners to prevent the flooding of swamp and overflow areas in
order to convert these lands to agricultural use. These levees failed repeatedly, in part due to
channel aggradation from hydraulic mining debris. In response, levees were strengthened and
raised close to the main channel to concentrate floodwaters in order to scour mining debris from
river channels for both navigation and flood control. As early as the 1860s however, a Colusa
newspaper publisher named Will S. Greene argued that it was not possible to contain entire
floods in a single channel between the levees and instead advocated for a bypass system to safely
accommodate large flood flows. In a report to the State legislature in 1880, William Hammond
Hall, the first State Engineer, also recognized that large floods could not be contained within a
single channel between the levees and argued that floods will occasionally come which must be
allowed to spread into bypasses and flood basins; and
B. WHEREAS, The prevailing view from about 1870 to about 1905 was that Sacramento River
floodwaters could be contained between the Sacramento River levees. The States Dabney
Commission Report of 1905 proposed continued use of the Sacramento River as the main single
channel conveyance, but also proposed that water be allowed to flood out of the river onto
agricultural lands when flood flows were too high. The Dabney Commission was based on a
flood flow of about 250,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) near Rio Vista. The Dabney
Commission Report was never adopted however; and
C. WHEREAS, Recently installed river gages indicated that the floods of 1907 and 1909 each
produced a flow of about 600,000 cfs which was far in excess of the flow that could be contained
by the Sacramento River levees; and
D. WHEREAS, The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Jackson Plan of 1910 was based
on the 1907 and 1909 floods with peak flows of about 600,000 cfs and recommended a
coordinated river and bypass system, as had been promoted by Colusa resident Will S. Green.
The purposes were to (1) allow conversion of valley swamp and overflow lands to agriculture;
(2) improve commercial navigation, and (3) maintain river velocities sufficient to transport soil,
Page 1 of 23
sand, and rock that were being washed down into valley rivers as a result of hydraulic gold
mining in the Sierra Nevada. In 1917 Congress authorized the Jackson Plan as the Sacramento
River Flood Control Project (SRFCP). The levees were typically constructed of material
dredged from the river bottom and shaped into a specified geometry, which resulted in relatively
inexpensive, but unreliable levees; and
E. WHEREAS, The Jackson Plan has worked well to reduce the frequency and damage
associated with flooding. Construction of reservoirs with flood control storage in the second half
of the 20th Century increased the ability of the system to accommodate flood flows larger than
originally envisioned. Although the Jackson Plan was perceived as a success by early 20th
Century landowners it does not meet societys expectations today; and
F. WHEREAS, Flood management in the San Joaquin Valley began with the construction of
levees to reclaim fertile tule lands and to protect against out-of-bank flows; and
G. WHEREAS, The Flood Control Act of 1944 authorized the Lower San Joaquin River and
Tributaries Project. The project included constructing levees on the San Joaquin River
downstream of the Merced River, Stanislaus River, Old River, Paradise Cut, and Camp Slough.
Construction began on the Lower San Joaquin River and Tributaries Project in 1956. This
project included construction of New Hogan Dam on the Calaveras River, New Melones Dam on
the Stanislaus River, and Don Pedro Dam on the Tuolumne River. New Melones Dam was later
reauthorized for construction under the Flood Control Act of 1962. The Chowchilla and Eastside
Bypasses were constructed by the State as part of the Lower San Joaquin River Flood Control
Project; and
H. WHEREAS, The Flood Control Act of 1944 also authorized construction of Isabella (Kern
River), Success (Tule River), Terminus (Kaweah River), and Pine Flat (Kings River) dams in the
Tulare Lake Basin. Following major flooding in 1955 construction of levees and bypasses on the
San Joaquin River upstream of the Merced River was authorized. From 1962 to 1963 Congress
authorized construction of Buchanan Dam on the Chowchilla River and Hidden Dam on the
Fresno River, and authorized federal participation in the cost of New Exchequer Dam on the
Merced River. In addition to flood protection all of these reservoirs provide water supply for
irrigation uses and, in some cases, hydropower generation. The 2008 legislation as described
below that required preparation of the Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP) did not
include the Tulare Lake Basin as a part of the CVFPP. Significant flood flows are diverted from
the Kings River to the San Joaquin River at Mendota Pool during large flood events; and
I. WHEREAS, Several smaller flood management projects have been developed in the Sierra
Nevada foothills on San Joaquin River tributaries. These projects generally consist of dry dams
constructed to protect downstream metropolitan areas and nearby agricultural lands. The Merced
County Stream Group Project was constructed to restrict flood flows on several streams to non-
damaging levels from the foothill line to the City of Merced. Farmington Dam on Little Johns
Creek provides flood protection for intensely developed agricultural lands below the dam, the
City of Stockton, and the rural towns of Farmington and French Camp; and
Page 2 of 23
J. WHEREAS, The very large 1986 and 1997 storms pushed the total flood system levees,
bypasses and reservoirs to maximum capacity. Some levees failed and areas were flooded. In
1997 some reaches of the Sacramento and San Joaquin systems were pushed beyond their
capacity resulting in numerous levee breaks and substantial flooding. If the flood control
reservoirs had not been built the peak flow at the mouth of the Sacramento River is estimated to
have been about one million cfs, and there would likely have been many more levee breaks and
widespread flooding; and
K.WHEREAS, In 1911 the Legislature created the Reclamation Board. The Reclamation Board
was given regulatory authority over the Sacramento Valleys local levee maintaining agencies
with the objectives of (1) assuring a logical, integrated system for controlling flooding along the
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries in cooperation with the USACE, (2)
cooperating with various agencies in planning, constructing, operating, and maintaining flood
control works, and (3) maintaining the integrity of the flood control system and designated
floodways. In 1913 the Reclamation Board was given regulatory authority over the San Joaquin
Valleys local levee maintaining agencies. In 2007 the Legislature restructured the Reclamation
Board and renamed it as the Central Valley Flood Protection Board.
FLOOD RISK:
L. WHEREAS, The primary flood management challenges facing the Sacramento and San
Joaquin River Basins are (1) insufficient levee integrity and insufficient capacity to handle large
rain floods in the Sacramento Basin, (2) insufficient levee integrity and insufficient capacity to
handle large rain floods and prolonged snowmelt runoff events in the San Joaquin Basin and (3)
urban developments in deep floodplains, because damages and potential life loss from inundation
would be so large.
M. WHEREAS, Flood risks in the Central Valley are among the highest in the nation, putting
the people of California and their economic livelihoods at risk (CWC 9601); and
AGRICULTURE:
N. WHEREAS, Agriculture in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins provides
substantial economic and societal benefits to the region, the nation, and the world, providing vast
quantities of food and fiber. Many specialty crops produced in these Basins are grown only in a
few other places in the world. Agriculture provides substantial open space and habitat. This
agricultural economy needs to be protected whenever possible; and
DEGRADATION OF HABITATS:
O. WHEREAS, Riverine habitats and ecosystem functions along Central Valley rivers have
been degraded over time. Upstream reservoirs further altered the natural hydrology, and levees
constructed adjacent to the active channel hydraulically severed millions of acres of floodplain
Page 3 of 23
habitat from rivers that were essential for fish and wildlife now actively protected under State
and federal law. Roughly four percent of the historical riparian forests that once lined valley
streams remain today. Much of this remaining habitat is growing on, within, or close to facilities
of the State Plan of Flood Control (SPFC); and
LEVEE REQUIREMENTS:
P. WHEREAS, In response to this and other flood-related threats to people, property, and the
environment, the Legislature enacted legislation requiring that new development approved by
cities and counties within flood hazard zones in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley must be
supported by a finding related to the urban level of flood protection for land use actions in the
urban and urbanizing areas, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency standard of flood
protection for land use actions in non-urbanized areas. The urban level of flood protection is
defined as the level of protection that is necessary to withstand flooding that has a 1-in-200
chance of occurring in any given year using criteria consistent with, or developed by, DWR.
After 2025, for urban and urbanizing areas protected by SPFC levees, cities and counties must
find that the new development is protected to at least the urban level of flood protection.
While the Legislature did not require a specific level of flood protection for non-urban areas, the
SSIA includes the use of structural means to achieve 100-year flood protection for some small
communities within the SPFC Planning Area and non-structural means to support continued
small community land use for other small communities.
FUNDING AND LEGISLATIVE ACTS:
Q. WHEREAS, In 2006 the people of California approved Proposition 84, the Safe Drinking
Water, Water Quality and Supply, Flood Control, River and Coastal Protection Bond Act of
2006 (Section 1, Division 43 PRC) which authorized $800,000,000 for flood control projects;
and
R. WHEREAS, In 2006 the people of California approved Proposition 1E, the Disaster
Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006 (Statutes of 2006, Chapter 33, AB 140),
authorizing approximately $4.09 billion to be invested in flood and related water management
improvements; and
S. WHEREAS, The Central Valley Flood Protection Act of 2008 (Statutes of 2007, Chapter
364, SB5) (2008 Act) was enacted, directing the Department of Water Resources (DWR) to
prepare a proposed Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (proposed CVFPP) by January 1, 2012,
and directs the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (Board) to adopt a final CVFPP (adopted
CVFPP) by July 1, 2012 (CWC 9612(b)).
Further, the 2008 Act declares that the Board shall hold at least two hearings to receive
comments on the proposed CVFPP, and that the Board shall accept written comments on the
proposed CVFPP (CWC 9612(c)).
Page 4 of 23
Further, the 2008 Act declares that the Board may make changes to the proposed CVFPP to
resolve issues raised in the hearings or to respond to comments received by the Board, and that
the Board shall publish its proposed changes to the proposed CVFPP at least two weeks before
adopting the CVFPP (CWC 9612(d)).
Further, the 2008 Act declares that the adopted CVFPP shall be updated in subsequent years
ending in 2 and 7 (CWC 9612(e)); and
T. WHEREAS, The 2008 Act declares that the adopted CVFPP shall be a descriptive document
reflecting a systemwide approach to protecting the lands currently protected from flooding by
existing facilities of the SPFC.
Further, The adopted CVFPP shall provide a description of: (a) both structural and nonstructural
means for improving the performance and elimination of deficiencies of levees, weirs, bypasses,
and facilities, including facilities of the SPFC; while accomplishing other multiple benefits; (b)
probable impacts of projected climate change, projected land use patterns, and other potential
flood management challenges on the ability of the system to provide adequate levels of flood
protection; (c) both structural and nonstructural methods for providing an urban level of flood
protection to current urban areas and a list of recommended next steps to improve urban flood
protection; and (d) structural and nonstructural means for enabling or improving systemwide
riverine ecosystem function including, but not limited to, establishment of riparian habitat and
seasonal inundation of available flood plains where feasible.
Further, The adopted CVFPP shall provide an evaluation of structural improvements and repairs
necessary to bring each of the facilities of the SPFC to within its design standard. The evaluation
shall include a prioritized list of recommended actions necessary to bring each facility not
identified in CWC 9614(h) to within its design standard; and include a list of facilities
recommended to be removed from the SPFC, including the reasoning for and any recommended
actions associated with removal; and
U. WHEREAS, The 2008 Act declares that the adopted CVFPP shall not be construed to expand
the liability of the State for the operation or maintenance of any flood management facility
beyond the scope of the SPFC and that neither the development nor the adoption of the CVFPP
shall be construed to constitute any commitment by the State to provide, to continue to provide,
or to maintain at, or to increase flood protection to, any particular level (CWC 9603(a)); and
V. WHEREAS, In addition to the 2008 Act, the 2007 flood legislation consists of AB 162, AB
70, AB 2140, and AB156 to strengthen the link between local land use decisions and regional
flood management; and specified that requirements vary depending on location within
California, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valley, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Drainage
District; and
Page 5 of 23
CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION PLAN:
W. WHEREAS, DWR released its proposed CVFPP (entitled "2012 Central Valley Flood
Protection Plan" published in December 2011). DWRs proposed CVFPP is a general framework
or roadmap, rather than an engineering proposal for specific construction. Given the complexity
and scope of the CVFPP it will take additional time for DWR to size and finalize the engineering
and hydrologic aspects of the CVFPP, and
X. WHEREAS, In developing the proposed CVFPP, DWR identified a primary goal and four
supporting goals. The primary goal is to improve flood risk management, which means to reduce
the chance of flooding, damages once flooding occurs, and improve public safety, preparedness,
and emergency response, through identifying, recommending, and implementing structural and
non-structural projects and actions that benefit lands currently receiving protection from facilities
of the SPFC; and formulating standards, criteria, and guidelines to facilitate implementation of
structural and nonstructural actions for protecting urban areas and other lands of the Sacramento
and San Joaquin River Basins and the Delta. The supporting goals are: (1) improve operations
and maintenance; (2) promote ecosystem functions; (3) improve institutional support; and (4)
promote multi-benefit projects; and
Y. WHEREAS, As described in Section 1.6 of the proposed CVFPP, the plan formulation was a
multi-step process and was prepared in coordination with local flood management agencies, the
Board, federal agencies (i.e., USACE, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FEMA, National Marine
Fisheries Service, etc.), local and tribal governments, owners and operators, partners,
stakeholders and interest groups, and the general public (see Volume I, Attachment 5); and
Z. WHEREAS, In developing the proposed CVFPP, DWR formulated and evaluated three
preliminary approaches highlighting different ways to focus future flood management
investments and address CVFPP goals. These approaches were: (1) Achieve State Plan of Flood
Control Design Flow Capacity; (2) Protect High Risk Communities; and (3) Enhance Flood
System Capacity (see Section 2 of the proposed CVFPP); and
AA. WHEREAS, DWR developed and recommends adoption of the State Systemwide
Investment Approach (SSIA), an approach that draws from the strengths of each of the
preliminary approaches (see Section 3 of the proposed CVFPP); and
BB. WHEREAS, DWRs proposed CVFPP includes (a) levee and other regional flood risk
reduction improvements; and (b) increased system capacity such as expanding existing bypasses,
modifying some bypass weirs, reoperating reservoir storage and operations, and modifying
Folsom Dam; and
CC. WHEREAS, The proposed CVFPP would provide the following benefits: a) Levee
improvements would lower the likelihood of flooding areas protected by levees; b) Increased
system capacity, such as expanded bypasses or reservoir reoperation would provide flood
benefits to both urban and rural areas by (1) lowering the water surface elevation of floodwater
Page 6 of 23
against levees, recognizing that water pressure is a main driver for several levee failure
mechanisms, and (2) by providing additional capacity to handle larger floods; c) With levee
improvements and the increased system capacity in a very large flood, there will be a greater
likelihood of containing the floodwaters within the system rather than having levees fail,
resulting in uncontrolled flooding of urban and rural lands. In smaller floods the elevation of
floodwater against the levees would be lower, which would reduce the likelihood of urban and
rural levee failures; and
VEGETATION MANAGEMENT POLICY:
DD. WHEREAS, Many of the levees along rivers in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River
Basins were constructed close to the rivers in order to maintain high velocities to scour out rock,
sand, and dirt settling in the rivers. Many of these levees have woody vegetation on or near the
levee. In some cases, this was incorporated into the design of the levee project while in others,
maintenance practices have resulted in woody vegetation being left to grow on the levee; and
EE. WHEREAS, Rivers in California provide many public purposes including recreation,
fisheries and fishing, habitat, esthetics, State and local parks, etc. Because many of the levees
are very close to the rivers, the levee vegetation has become integral and essential to these
valuable public purposes, and
FF. WHEREAS, The USACE has always had policies limiting vegetation on certain levees,
those vegetation-prohibition policies have not been consistently enforced, and the USACE itself
has, at times, planted such vegetation. Recently the USACE has issued an engineering technical
letter (ETL) specifying standards that no woody vegetation may remain on federal-State levees
or be within fifteen (15) feet of the levee toe on either side of the levee. The cost of complying
with these standards would be substantial. If a levee does not meet the standards, flood-damaged
levees would not be eligible for federal rehabilitation (Public Law 84-99) assistance. The
USACE is currently requiring compliance with the standards in projects that it sponsors,
provides assistance for, or approves under Code of Federal Regulations Section 408. It has also
required compliance with the ETL for modifications of project levees in the CVFPP planning
area; and
GG. WHEREAS, Many different interests, including DWR and the Board, have objected to the
adoption and implementation of the USACE standards. The proposed CVFPP outlines a
different levee-vegetation management strategy for these close to the river levees in the
Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. DWRs vegetation management strategy would
allow some of the existing woody vegetation to remain. This proposed interim management
strategy would be implemented while scientific studies progress to determine whether vegetation
removal or attrition are necessary for public safety considerations, appropriate, and the best use
of limited funds; and
Page 7 of 23
PUBLIC MEETINGS AND HEARINGS:
HH. WHEREAS, At the direction of the Board its staff engaged in a review of: (1) the technical
analyses conducted by DWR in the development of the proposed CVFPP; and (2) the proposed
CVFPP Conservation Framework that describes how environmental stewardship is integrated
into flood management activities; and
II. WHEREAS, DWR presented and highlighted key elements of the proposed CVFPP to the
Board at its monthly meeting on January 27, 2012, at which time the Board also described its
process for reviewing the technical documents and accepting public comments. The Board
solicited recommendations of focus topics for Board review of the proposed CVFPP at its
monthly meeting on February 24, 2012; and
JJ. WHEREAS, DWR, as lead agency under the CEQA, PRC 21000 et seq. and pursuant to a
lead agency agreement, prepared a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (DPEIR) on the
CVFPP, (State Clearinghouse (SCH) No. 2010102044, March 6, 2012). The 45-day public
review period ended on April 20, 2012. DWR presented the DPEIR to the Board at its monthly
meeting on March 23, 2012; and
KK. WHEREAS, The Board, as a responsible CEQA agency in the preparation of the DPEIR,
held four joint public hearings with DWR on April 5th (Sacramento), 6th (Marysville), 9th
(Stockton) and 11th (Woodland) to accept comments on the draft PEIR, hear further public
comments on the proposed CVFPP, hear a report by Board staff on their technical review of the
proposed CVFPP, documents incorporated by reference, and attachments; and
LL. WHEREAS, The public comments fell into five general categories: (1) project definition;
(2) system and local improvements; (3) participation by stakeholders; (4) implementation; and
(5) secondary but related issues. Public comments were focused on the following key issues:
a) Inclusion of bypass expansions and new bypasses in the proposed CVFPP, including the
potential Sutter Bypass expansion, Yolo Bypass expansion, a new Feather to Butte Bypass, and a
Paradise Cut Bypass. Certain maps, such as those depicted on Figures 3-1 and 3-2 in the
proposed CVFPP, show potential bypass enlargements. These enlargements are conceptual in
nature as presented in the proposed CVFPP and the Figures do not reflect actual alignments.
b) Agricultural land conversion and potential effects of the proposed CVFPP on agricultural
lands and production, including the sustainability of rural-agricultural economies.
c) Levels of flood protection targeted in the proposed CVFPP for urban and non-urban areas,
including potential effects on local maintaining agency operations and maintenance
responsibilities, eligibility for emergency repair funding, federal funding for rural improvements,
and the need for rural levee repair and improvement standards.
Page 8 of 23
d) New urban level of flood protection requirements for cities and counties that come into effect
upon CVFPP adoption, including information and criteria needed for local cities and counties to
make findings.
e) Maintenance, repair and rehabilitation of existing flood management system facilities, versus
construction of new facilities.
f) Integration of water supply, ecosystem restoration, recreation, and other benefits into flood
management system improvements, including the need for objectives to measure the success of
integration and concern for potential land use and public safety implications.
g) Desire for a vision statement summarizing the overall intent of the adopted CVFPP and the
SSIA.
h) Formulation and selection of the SSIA, including rationale for and cost-effectiveness of the
approach.
i) The potentially high cost of the SSIA including financing, federal cost-sharing, and the local
ability to pay for improvements.
j) Suggestions that new reservoir flood storage should be included in the SSIA.
k) Consideration of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Delta) in the proposed CVFPP, including
the potential for hydraulic impacts to the Delta and flood protection for Delta lands not protected
by SPFC facilities.
l) Need for policies or guidance addressing the potential hydraulic impacts of the proposed
CVFPP, including impacts associated with repairing existing SPFC.
m) Level of engagement in proposed CVFPP development of stakeholders, including land

owners and other interested parties, and how these stakeholders will be engaged following
adoption of the CVFPP.
n) Proposal for and timing of post-adoption activities (such as regional planning and basinwide
feasibility studies), including the role of the USACE in these activities and coordination with
other, ongoing projects and programs in the Central Valley.
o) Use and prioritization of available and future funds to implement the adopted CVFPP,
including allocation to achieve public safety goals in both urban and non-urban areas, and
consideration of economic feasibility.
p) The need for increased flexibility for small communities and rural-agricultural areas in
complying with FEMAs standards applicable to special flood hazard areas; and
Page 9 of 23
MM. WHEREAS, During the public hearings Board staff reported its findings regarding the
completeness and adequacy of DWRs technical analysis, including its conclusion that DWR
applied well established standards of engineering and scientific practice in the preparation of the
proposed CVFPP; and
NN. WHEREAS, The Board held a public workshop with DWR on April 20, 2012 to discuss
key issues raised by the public, to consider how these issues might be addressed in the adopted
CVFPP, and to discuss the proposed structure of an adoption package; and
OO. WHEREAS, The Board held its regular monthly Board meeting on April 27, 2012 and
received a summary report from Board staff on public comments received to date, received a
report from DWR on the Regional Planning Process, and publicly discussed the proposed
adoption package; and
PP. WHEREAS, The Board publicly discussed the adoption package to seek further public
comments at various meetings, including: a special Board meeting on May 11, 2012; the Boards
regular monthly meeting on May 25, 2012 (continued on June 1 and June 8, 2012); and a special
Board meeting on June 15, 2012 to authorize the proposed CVFPP adoption package, and to post
the adoption package on the Boards public web site for a two-week period per CWC 9612(d);
and
QQ. WHEREAS, DWR, as lead agency and pursuant to a lead agency agreement, prepared a
Final Program Environmental Impact Report (FPEIR) (SCH No. 2010102044, June 2012),
certified the FPEIR and CEQA findings, mitigation measures, a Mitigation Monitoring or
Reporting Program (MMRP), and a Statement of Overriding Considerations pursuant to CEQA
and the CEQA Guidelines (incorporated herein by reference) on June 28, 2012, and intends to
file a Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse. The DPEIR and FPEIR are
incorporated herein by reference and available at the Board or DWR offices; and
RR. WHEREAS, the FPEIR serves as the basis for program-level CEQA compliance for all
discretionary actions by other State and local agencies necessary to implement the CVFPP.
Adoption of the CVFPP by the Board is a programmatic discretionary action that can rely on the
program-level FPEIR. Consistent with the provisions of the CEQA Guidelines Section
15152(d), State or local agency discretionary actions on future projects shall be based upon the
FPEIR together with additional project-level environmental analysis and public comment for
such projects not examined in detail in the FPEIR.
SS. WHEREAS, The Board reviewed the findings of its staff, documents and correspondence in
its file, and environmental documents prepared by DWR.
Page 10 of 23
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1. RESOLVED, That the above recitals are true and correct.
GOALS:
2. RESOLVED, That the Board hereby adopts the primary goal and four supporting goals, as
described in Whereas X, for the CVFPP previously proposed by DWR and by this resolution the
Board is also adopting a specific vision for the CVFPP that is consistent with those goals and the
Boards goals of: (1) managing flood risk along the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their
tributaries in cooperation with the USACE; (2) cooperating with various agencies of the federal,
State and local governments in establishing, planning, constructing, operating, and maintaining
flood control works; (3) and maintaining the integrity of the existing flood control system and
designated floodways through the Boards regulatory authority by issuing permits for
encroachments.
VISION STATEMENT:
3. RESOLVED, That the Boards vision for the CVFPP is to:|
(a) Have as first priority the protection of life and property by reducing both the probability and
consequences of flooding.
(b) Protect life and property in urban and rural areas by assuring that the existing system is
properly maintained and managed.
(c) Protect life and property in urban and rural areas by improving reliability and expanding the
capacity of the existing system to provide a margin of safety in the event of larger flood events.
(d) Cooperate with various federal, State, and local agencies and stakeholders to manage flood
risk.
(e) Restore ecosystem function to promote the recovery and stability of native species and
overall biotic diversity and provide for recreation.
(f) Promote economic sustainability in urban, rural, and agricultural areas.
(g) Improve long-term system resiliency to address uncertainties such as the effects of climate
change, other changes in hydrology, or uncertain geotechnical conditions.
Page 11 of 23
TECHNICAL FINDINGS:
4. RESOLVED, That the Board finds that the adopted CVFPP meets the requirements and intent
of the 2008 Act.
5. RESOLVED, That the Board finds that DWR, in preparing the proposed CVFPP, applied
well-established standards of engineering practice, and utilized best available scientific data and
methodologies to evaluate a range of conceptual, preliminary approaches including modifying
existing SPFC facilities to achieve their design standards, focusing flood system improvements
on protecting public safety and populations at risk, and enhancing overall flood system capacity
and ecosystem functions.
6. RESOLVED, That the Board finds that the SSIA identified the most promising elements of
each of the three preliminary approaches.
7. RESOLVED, That the Board finds that SSIA helps achieve the Boards vision for flood
management in a balanced manner through responsible investment of public funds,
commensurate with flood risks, in projects that integrate multiple benefits, where feasible, in
proactive SPFC maintenance and residual risk management, and through wise management of
floodplains protected by the SPFC.
8. RESOLVED, That the Board finds that the USACE is often an essential partner for flood
protection repairs and improvements for the communities in the Sacramento and San Joaquin
River Basins.
9. RESOLVED, That the Board finds that the adopted CVFPP will be used as a long-term
planning document acting as the framework for: (1) regional plans to be prepared by local
agencies and stakeholders under a DWR-sponsored process; (2) systemwide improvement plans
to be prepared by DWR, with stakeholder input, in consideration of regional plans; and (3) other
local, regional, and basinwide plans to be prepared by USACE and / or DWR. The adopted
CVFPP does not authorize or approve any site-specific ground-disturbing actions or construction
activities.
10. RESOLVED, That the Board finds that in addition to local benefits, existing and expanded
bypasses provide systemwide benefits. Therefore, systemwide flood control beneficiaries should
contribute to the cost of providing systemwide benefits including but not limited to bypass
modifications and maintenance. The Board also believes that to the extent that bypass
modifications are considered prior to the adoption of the 2017 CVFPP, such modifications
should focus first on the furthest downstream bypasses on the systems, such as the Yolo and
proposed Paradise Cut Bypasses.
Page 12 of 23
AMENDMENTS AND ADOPTION:
11. RESOLVED, That the Board, in consideration of public comment, amends and adopts the
proposed CVFPP, including the documents listed in Resolved 24, based on the following
framework that will guide implementation of the adopted CVFPP:
(a) The Board will exercise its authority and jurisdiction in partnership with DWR to conduct
post-adoption planning and implementation, and provide a public forum for activities related to
the adopted CVFPP including participating with DWR in regional planning, basinwide and
project-specific feasibility studies, project-level environmental compliance to refine adopted
CVFPP elements and physical features; enforcing maintenance requirements and other
applicable permitted conditions; issuing permits; acquiring lands and easements; executing cost-
sharing agreements; and other activities needed to update and implement the adopted CVFPP.
(b) Future processes and activities will occur which will continue to ensure meaningful public
and stakeholder participation as the reconnaissance-level proposals expressed in the adopted
CVFPP are further studied at regional and basinwide levels of detail to determine whether or not
they will improve flood management, and are feasible and fundable. The use of different lists of
stakeholders in this Resolution is not intended to present the exclusive list of stakeholders who
may be interested in a particular issue, and the ordering of the list is not intended to indicate that
one stakeholder group is more significant than another.
(c) The Board intends to provide a forum, through the establishment of one or more advisory
committees or other group pursuant to CWC 9612(f), to discuss guidelines that prioritize and
implement flood risk reduction projects and programs, consistent with the adopted CVFPP, using
remaining funding from Propositions 84 and 1E and any further sources of funding identified.
(d) The Board will designate an advisory committee or other group to develop specific,
measurable, achievable, results oriented and time-bound conservation objectives for
consideration by the Board for possible inclusion in the adopted CVFPP and the Conservation
Strategy.
(e) DWR anticipates completing a draft Central Valley Flood System Conservation Strategy not
later than 2014, expanding on the Conservation Framework attached to the adopted CVFPP, to
describe long-term, systemwide conservation objectives and covered actions associated with the
flood management system.
(f) Pursuant to CWC 9620(c), DWR will prepare a recommended schedule and funding plan in
2013 to implement the recommendations of the adopted CVFPP, and DWR, by December 31,
2012, will brief the Board as to how it intends to collaborate with local, State and federal
agencies on the development of the recommended schedule and funding plan.
(g) DWR intends to provide funding, to be cost shared by local agencies, to implement urban,
small community, and rural levee repairs and improvements consistent with the adopted CVFPP.
Page 13 of 23
(h) The Board will create an advisory committee, or other appropriate group, working with
DWR, local maintaining agencies, interested stakeholders, and the USACE to develop rural
levee repair and improvement criteria, to be applied to planned or emergency work. The Board
intends for the advisory committee or group to produce draft criteria to be available by July 1,
2013.
(i) The Board should, consistent with the CVFPP, seek to preserve rural agricultural landscapes,
minimize the loss of agricultural production by using agriculture to achieve habitat values, i.e.
"working landscapes", and minimize the impacts to adjacent landowners from construction of
flood system improvements that include newly created habitat.
The Board recognizes that mitigation of the impacts of newly established or expanded bypasses
and habitat areas on agriculture is a concern to the agricultural community, but also recognizes
that the issue of mitigating for effects presents complex questions of both law and policy. The
current policy of the Natural Resources Agency to examine the issue on a case-by-case basis.
However, this policy is now evolving as agencies consider the effects of large-scale
infrastructure projects on habitat and farmland. The Board encourages DWR to consider
mitigation on a case-by-case basis.
(j) DWR, in coordination with the Board, USACE, local agencies and the public will initiate
State-led basinwide feasibility studies for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins (in time
to inform the 2017 CVFPP update) to evaluate and refine the conceptual system improvement
elements described in the adopted CVFPP, including bypass expansions and new bypasses, and
evaluate appropriate regional plan elements at the system-wide level. These are likely to include
the formation of one or more working groups to identify potential implementation challenges and
solutions, potential effects on local and regional land uses and economies, and specific multi-
benefit objectives for system elements.
(k) In accordance with the authority and jurisdiction of the Board to approve or deny any flood
risk reduction project affecting any facility of the SPFC, the Board will review project-specific
implementation actions, and associated environmental review and compliance documents, as
appropriate, developed through post-adoption planning activities associated with the adopted
CVFPP.
(l) In conducting post-adoption implementation activities associated with the adopted CVFPP,
DWR will work with the Board on other ongoing projects and programs in the Central Valley to
identify mutual objectives, complementary project elements, and improve the efficiency of
outreach and engagement with stakeholders and the public.
(m) Wherever feasible, improvements to the SPFC should be implemented in accordance with
CWC 9616 and provide for multiple benefits through projects designed to improve public
safety while achieving other benefits, such as restoration of ecosystem functions and habitats
within the flood management system.
Page 14 of 23
(n) DWR will continue to make investments in new data, analysis tools, and systemwide benefit
policies to support refinement of the physical elements of the adopted CVFPP, and assess the
feasibility of project-specific implementation actions and local planning efforts.
(o) DWR will conduct additional analyses to evaluate the effects of climate change and the
effectiveness of various flood system improvements proposed in the SSIA to accommodate
future changes in hydrology and sea level rise, for use in the basinwide feasibility studies.
(p) The proposed CVFPP includes the Folsom Dam Joint Federal Project, the Folsom Dam
Water Control Manual Update Project, the Folsom Dam Raise Project, the Yuba-Feather Rivers
Joint Project for Forecast Coordinated Operations (FCO), and FCO for other reservoirs. These
projects will have the effect of increasing and / or improving the use of the reservoir storage
space for flood management. In addition to these projects, DWR will: (1) consider reservoir
reoperations, expansions or modifications, including those proposed by local or regional entities;
and (2) continue to consider flood management as an objective of its ongoing multi-benefit
surface storage investigations and systemwide reoperation studies. Should these related DWR
efforts identify flood management as a component of a feasible reservoir storage project, such
project may be proposed for implementation under the adopted CVFPP and / or may be reflected
in future updates to the adopted CVFPP.
(q) DWR will continue to provide guidance, criteria, data, analyses and technical support to
assist cities and counties in making findings related to the urban level of flood protection and
related land use planning requirements that come into effect upon adoption of the CVFPP to
assist them to meet their statutory deadlines. The Board encourages DWR to provide
preliminary 100- and 200-year floodplain mapping of areas protected by SPFC facilities to cities
and counties by July 1, 2013 to allow cities and counties to meet their statutory deadlines.
(r) Studies and analyses that result from implementation of the adopted CVFPP will be included
in the 2017 update of the CVFPP and will be shared with the USACE to be considered in its
Central Valley Integrated Flood Management Study scheduled for release at the same time,
consistent with the States goal to maximize federal and local cost sharing.
(s) DWR will sponsor regional flood management planning efforts which will develop regional
plans that present stakeholder perspectives of flood management priorities for each region, the
results of which will be coordinated between regions and integrated into or consistent with the
basinwide plans. Regional planning should create a role for all interested stakeholders including
representatives from agricultural, city and county, conservation, environmental, landowner, and
water supply interests as well as the flood control agencies and organizations. The Board will
provide a link on its website at http://cvfpb.water.ca.gov to a location on DWRs website for
announcements and documentation on the regional planning process.
(t) The Board intends to: (1) participate in each regions planning process by providing a
representative for each region who can participate in regional meetings and act as a liaison
between the regional planning process and the Board; and (2) hold hearings to allow the Board to
Page 15 of 23
evaluate the content of the different regional plans, consider the interplay of the various regional
plans, consider the coordination and integration of the regional plans with and into the basinwide
feasibility studies, and provide a public forum for stakeholder comments. The Board will engage
in the development and integration of the regional and basinwide plans in a manner consistent
with this Resolution.
(u) Regional planning efforts should include a focus on managing the river corridors covered by
the CVFPP to reduce flood risk and promote ecosystem functions, and should build on the
existing river corridor management efforts, including those efforts in the Sacramento and San
Joaquin River basins which have had some success.
(v) The Board desires to support viable, cost effective and locally supported repair and
improvement projects, but may not support projects that physically interfere with systemwide
improvements developed consistent with the adopted CVFPP.
(w) The Board will partner with State and local agencies to work with FEMA and Congress to
seek needed regulatory reform and reduced insurance rates for rural and small communities
located in the FEMA floodplain to assure continued economically viable agricultural operations.
(x) The Board intends, in cooperation with DWR, to reach out to State and federal agencies and
departments to facilitate coordination between the CVFPP and other major water and
conservation-related programs in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Systems.
(y) For those deliverables and processes set forth in items (a) through (x) above, it is understood
that DWR shall provide quarterly reports to the Board regarding schedules and progress.
12. RESOLVED, That the Board will consider whether to adopt as part of the CVFPP the Draft
Urban Level of Flood Protection Criteria (ULOP) and the Urban Levee Design Criteria (ULDC)
six-months after their public release, not earlier than November 14, 2012. The Board will not
adopt the ULOP and ULDC as part of the CVFPP until participating with a group of
representatives from cities, counties, DWR staff and other stakeholders, in an effort to resolve
concerns, guide implementation, and incorporate any changes necessitated through legislation to
the ULOP and ULDC.
13. RESOLVED, That the Board may adopt interim updates to the adopted CVFPP consistent
with the requirements of CEQA.
14. RESOLVED, That the Board, in accordance with its authority and jurisdiction, will review
and provide comments on proposed amendments to the safety elements of general plans within
the Sacramento and San Joaquin Drainage District relating to: (1) uses of land and policies in
areas subject to flooding; and (2) methods and strategies for flood risk reduction and protection
pursuant to CGC 65302(g) (Statutes of 2007, Chapter 369, AB 162).
Page 16 of 23
15. RESOLVED, That nothing in the proposed CVFPP and appendices, nor any referenced
policies or guidelines, is intended to change the Boards practice for the evaluation of hydraulic
impacts. Under this practice the Board has consistently found that no adverse hydraulic impacts
are associated with levee strengthening projects that do not change the alignment or height of the
levee, or the cross section of the channel and overflow area.
16. RESOLVED, That DWR, in coordination with the Board, USACE, and other stakeholders,
intends to develop appropriate policies or guidance for the consideration of potential temporary
or permanent hydraulic impacts associated with incremental implementation of projects
consistent with the adopted CVFPP.
17. RESOLVED, That urban, small community, and rural areas that desire to reduce their flood
risk may pursue levee alterations or other improvements and other changes when not inconsistent
with the adopted CVFPP.
18. RESOLVED, That the adopted CVFPP shall be updated by DWR in 2017 and considered
for adoption by the Board at that time, and every five years thereafter, in subsequent years
ending in 2 and 7, documenting progress made in refining and implementing the CVFPP.
19. RESOLVED, That DWR shall update the Flood Control System Status Report in 2016, and
in subsequent years ending in 1 and 6 to help inform future CVFPP updates.
20. RESOLVED, That DWR shall update the State Plan of Flood Control Descriptive Document
as necessary by agreement between the Board and DWR as facilities are added to or removed
from the SPFC.
21. RESOLVED, That to the extent that changes in law or administrative rules affect
implementation of the adopted CVFPP, the adopted CVFPP will be implemented consistent with
such changed laws and administrative rules.
22. RESOLVED, That the new USACE levee vegetation standards would require removal of all
woody vegetation, the larger roots of woody vegetation, forbs, and non-perennial grasses.
Instead of serving multiple public purposes such as recreation and esthetics, the levees would,
under the USACE standard, become single-purpose flood control facilities.
A number of California Congressional members have introduced bipartisan legislation to ask the
USACE to further study its levee vegetation policy. In addition, the States Department of Fish
and Game and other organizations have filed separate litigation against the USACE regarding
lack of compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental
Policy Act.
Management of vegetation on Central Valley levees is at the heart of the disagreement between
the USACE vegetation policy and resource agency recovery efforts for river corridors. At a
Page 17 of 23
minimum, USACE should have completed an Environmental Impact Statement, consulted with
the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and other relevant state and federal agencies in
developing its nationwide levee vegetation removal policy. Further USACE should coordinate
with California agencies in the development of an appropriate approach to the management of
levee vegetation in Californias Central Valley.
DWR has developed an alternate levee vegetation management strategy, as proposed in the
CVFPP and the Conservation Framework.
This Resolution amends and approves the proposed CVFPP levee vegetation management
strategy as an interim strategy. The objectives of the strategy are to provide for levee safety and
to protect the other important public purposes served by vegetation on the levees.
The Board adopts the levee vegetation management strategy in Section 4.2 of the CVFPP with
the following changes: (1) not to implement the new USACE vegetation policy and
implementation procedures that significantly compromise the multi-purpose uses provided by the
river system in California, including environmental protection, recreation, aesthetics, and other
broad public benefits, (2) would allow, by exception woody vegetation on and near levees if
appropriate and consistent with public safety needs, and (3) would allow woody vegetation on
the lower portion of the waterside of new levees that are not setback from the river if appropriate
and consistent with public safety needs.
In summary, the levee vegetation management strategy would (1) not implement the USACEs
levee vegetation policy; (2) not allow woody vegetation on or near new setback levees away
from the river and that do not contribute to the multiple purposes served by rivers, (3)
permanently allow woody vegetation on the lower portion of the waterside of existing or new
levees that are not set back from the river, (4) temporarily allow other existing woody vegetation
to remain on and near the rest of the levees until the end of the natural life of the existing woody
vegetation, (5) require that woody vegetation be managed to assure visibility and accessibility:
visibility for inspection of levee status and accessibility for maintenance, repair, and flood-
fighting, and (6) would allow, by exception, woody vegetation on and near levees if appropriate
and consistent with public safety needs.
DWR and the Board will work with the State Department of Fish and Game, the State
Department of Parks and Recreation, appropriate federal agencies, local maintaining agencies,
and other stakeholders to further develop a more comprehensive State levee vegetation
management strategy in light of ongoing scientific research, the state of engineering practice,
subsequent review, litigation, or legislation.
If the USACE levee vegetation policy becomes non-operative, the Board also intends to revisit
the adopted CVFPP interim levee vegetation management strategy.
Page 18 of 23
23. RESOLVED, The Board has serious concerns that the proposed Feather River Bypass
(including the enlargement of the Cherokee Canal) (a) could have adverse, unmitigated hydraulic
effects on downstream landowners, and (b) is unlikely to be found economically justifiable. In
addition, the Board is aware of existing flood-carrying capacity limitations in the Cherokee
Canal attributed to its original design, further diminished by channel vegetation and sediment
management challenges, possibly compromising critical flood protection at the local level.
Therefore, the proposed Feather River Bypass is removed from the CVFPP. The Board thus
advises DWR to: (1) consider improving the Canal to its original design capacity; (2) consider
alternatives to expansion of the Canal, with alternatives evaluated on an equal footing, and (3) if
DWR concludes that expansion is necessary it will fully and carefully evaluate the hydraulic and
environmental effects and associated benefits, all with considered public input. This bypass may
be brought forward in the 2017 update of the CVFPP.
CAVEATS:
24. RESOLVED, That the following caveats are included:
a) It is expected that appropriate flood risk reduction projects will continue to be implemented
during post-adoption regional and basinwide planning efforts.
b) Given the uncertainty of federal funding and approval in the current economic climate, other
mechanisms may need to be utilized to make timely and cost-effective flood risk reduction
improvements.
c) In an area with a willing and able local agency, that agency can carry out basinwide
improvements consistent with the adopted CVFPP.
d) Evaluation of the implications of climate change should be consistent with current science, but
it should be recognized that climate change will likely continue beyond 2100.
e) It is recognized that implementation of specific projects and programs is dependent on

funding.
f) The proposed CVFPP is a planning document and it is intended to guide subsequent studies,
planning, public outreach, environmental review, and decision-making processes relating to
individual projects and program elements. Nothing in the proposed CVFPP, this Resolution, or
in other actions taken by the Board to adopt the CVFPP represents a commitment to later carry
out or approve any such projects and program elements, nor does the adoption of the CVFPP
foreclose the development of alternatives as part of the environmental review of any such
projects and program elements. The implementation of individual projects and program
elements shall occur in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations and the terms of this
Resolution.
Page 19 of 23
DOCUMENTS INCLUDED IN THE ADOPTED CVFPP:
25. RESOLVED, That the adopted 2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan includes the
following documents:
a) The contents of this Resolution 2012-25;
b) The Public Draft entitled "2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan" in the form published
by DWR in December 2011, as modified by this Resolution 2012-25 and the Errata discussed in
24 (f) below, and including all the structural and environmental components described in the
December 2011 document;
c) The State Plan of Flood Control Descriptive Document (DWR, November 2010), as modified
by this Resolution 2012-25;
d) The Flood Control System Status Report (DWR, December 2011), as modified by this
Resolution 2012-25;
e) The following attachments to the Public Draft of the 2012 CVFPP, as modified by this
Resolution 2012-25 and the Errata discussed below:
1. Volume I, Attachment 1, Legislative Reference (DWR, June 2012);
2. Volume I, Attachment 2, Conservation Framework (DWR, June 2012);
3. Volume I, Attachment 3, Documents Incorporated by Reference (DWR, June 2012) [1];
4. Volume I, Attachment 4, Glossary (DWR, June 2012);
5. Volume I, Attachment 5, Engagement Record (DWR, June 2012);
6. Volume I, Attachment 6, Contributing Authors and Work Group Members List (DWR,
June 2012)
f) Errata to the Public Draft 2012 Central Valley Flood Protection Plan and Volume 1,
Attachments 1-6 (DWR, June 2012, which modifies the Public Draft of the CVFPP and Volume
1, Attachments 1-6.
g) Public Comment Record (Board, June 2012) commencing January 1, 2012 through May 4,
2012.
[1] Volume 1, Attachment 3 provides a summary of four documents that are either linked with the proposed CVFPP
through legislative requirements or related management policies that adoption of the CVFPP will trigger, but not the
documents themselves. These documents are the State Plan of Flood Control Descriptive Document (DWR, 2010),
Flood Control System Status Report (DWR, 2011), Draft Urban Level of Flood Protection Criteria (DWR, 2012)
and Urban Levee Design Criteria, (DWR, 2012).
26. RESOLVED, Not withstanding Section 1.6.5 of the proposed CVFPP as changed by the
Errata discussed in 25 (a) and (f) above, that the adopted 2012 Central Valley Flood Protection
Plan does not include any portion of Attachments 7, 8 or 9 contained in Volumes II, III, IV and
V of the Public Draft of the CVFPP.
Page 20 of 23
CEQA FINDINGS:
27. RESOLVED, That the Board, as a responsible agency, has independently reviewed the
analyses in the DPEIR (SCH No. 2010102044, March 2012) and the FPEIR (SCH No.
2010102044, June 2012) which includes the DWR Lead Agency findings, MMRP, Findings of
Fact, and Statement of Overriding Considerations on the proposed CVFPP, and has reached its
own conclusions.
28. RESOLVED, That the Board, after consideration of the DPEIR (SCH No. 2010102044,
March 2012) and the FPEIR (SCH No. 2010102044, June 2012) and DWR Lead Agency
findings, adopts the project description, MMRP, analysis and findings which are relevant to the
CVFPP.
29. Findings regarding Significant Impacts. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15096(h)
and 15091, the Board determines that the DWR Lead Agency Findings and Statement of
Overriding Considerations, incorporated herein by reference, identify potential impacts of the
CVFPP to the Central Valleys flood management system, before and after mitigation. Having
reviewed the FPEIR and DWR findings, the Board makes its findings as follows:
a. Findings regarding Significant Impacts and Potentially Significant Impacts that can be
reduced to Less Than Significant.
The Board finds that the CVFPP may have significant, avoidable impacts, as more fully
described in the FPEIR and the DWR findings. The FPEIR and DWR Lead Agency findings
identify the significant and potentially significant impacts associated with the CVFPP that are
reduced to a less-than-significant level by mitigation measures.
As a responsible agency, the Board has responsibility for mitigating or avoiding only the direct
or indirect environmental effects of those parts of the CVFPP which it decides to carry out,
finance, or approve. The Board confirms that it has reviewed the FPEIR, DWR Lead Agency
findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and the MMRP, and finds that changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the MMRP which substantially lessen
such impacts. The mitigation measures are within the responsibility of another agency, DWR.
The Board has confirmed that DWR has adopted and committed to implementation of the
measures identified therein. Each of those mitigation measures applicable to those portions of
the project which the Board will fund or approve is made a condition of the Boards approval.
The Board agrees and confirms that there are no additional feasible mitigation measures within
its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the CVFPP would have
on the environment.
b. Findings Regarding Significant and Unavoidable Impacts.
The Board finds that the CVFPP may have significant, unavoidable impacts, as more fully
described in the FPEIR and the DWR findings. Mitigation has been adopted for each of these
Page 21 of 23
potential impacts, although it does not reduce the impacts to less than significant. The Board
finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the MMRP which
substantially lessens such impacts, as set forth more fully in the DWR findings.
The mitigation measures are within the responsibility of another agency, DWR. The Board has
confirmed that DWR has adopted and committed to implementation of the measures identified
therein. Each of those mitigation measures applicable to those portions of the project which the
Board will fund or approve is made a condition of the Boards approval. The Board agrees and
confirms that there are no additional feasible mitigation measures within its powers that would
substantially lessen or avoid any significant effect the CVFPP would have on the environment.
The Board also finds that the specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of
the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, as discussed in more detail
below in the Boards Statement of Overriding Considerations.
30. Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15096(h)

and 15093, the Board has balanced the economic, social, technological and other benefits
described in the CVFPP against its significant and unavoidable impacts. The Board finds that
the benefits of the CVFPP outweigh these impacts and they may, therefore, be considered
acceptable.
The Board finds that there is an immediate need to protect the people and property at risk in the
CVFPP area. The CVFPP will protect a population of over one million people, major freeways,
railroads, airports, water supply systems, utilities, and other infrastructure of statewide
importance, including $69 billion in assets (includes structural and content value and estimated
annual crop production values). The California Central Valley consists of deep floodplains
where, depending on the circumstances, flood depths could reach life-threatening levels. The
health and safety benefits of the CVFPP, which would significantly reduce the risk of an
uncontrolled flood in the California Central Valley that would result in a catastrophic loss of
property and threat to residents, outweigh the remaining unavoidable significant impacts.
31. RESOLVED, The Board directs the Executive Officer to take the necessary actions to
prepare and file a Notice of Determination pursuant to CEQA for the Central Valley Flood
Protection Plan, Final Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2010102044).
Page 22 of 23
CUSTODIAN OF RECORD:
The custodian of the CEQA record for the Board is its Executive Officer, Jay Punia, at the Board
offices at 3310 EI Camino Avenue, Room 151, Sacramento, California 95821.
This resolution shall constitute the written decision of the Board in the matter of adopting the
2012 CVFPP.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by vote of the Board on --'Z0"-""'' 'n=e'---'.;?<''"';jz- , 2012
William H. Edgar ~~
President
Ja Dolan
Sec etary
Page 23 of23
Jeremy Arrich, PE
Chief, Central Valley Flood Planning Office
arrich@water.ca.gov

3464 El Camino Ave., Ste. 150
Sacramento, CA 95821
http://www.water.ca.gov/cvfmp
Edmund G. Brown Jr.

Governor
State of California
John Laird
Secretary
Mark W. Cowin
Director

State of California

CVFPP Plan of Flood Control

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CVFPP Plan of Flood Control

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

June 2012

2012 Central Valley

This document was prepared for submission to the

Keith E. Swanson Eric S. Koch

Paul A. Marshall Noel M. Lerner

Jeremy M. Arrich Arthur Hinojosa

Merritt P. Rice Michael Sabbaghian

JUNE 2012 PAGE i

PAGE ii JUNE 2012

In preparing the CVFPP, DWR examined a range of potential approaches for

Mark W. Cowin, Director

JUNE 2012 PAGE iii

The Board appreciates the efforts of the Department of Water Resources

William H. Edgar, President

PAGE iv JUNE 2012

JUNE 2012 PAGE v

4.5 2007 2011 Accomplishments and Near-Term Priority Actions

PAGE vi JUNE 2012

JUNE 2012 PAGE vii

Volume II: Attachment 7

Volume III: Attachments 8 through 8E

Volume IV: Attachments 8F through 8L

PAGE viii JUNE 2012

Attachment 8I: Framework for Benefit Assessment

Volume V: Attachments 9A through 9G

JUNE 2012 PAGE ix

This page left blank intentionally.

PAGE x JUNE 2012

1.0 RESPONDING TO THE NEED FOR

JUNE 2012 PAGE 11

Central Valley Flood System Program

Figure 1-1. Rollout of Future Programs

1.2 Setting and Historical Context

PAGE 12 JUNE 2012

Catastrophic floods in the Central Valley have

In response to frequent flood events and the chal-

Levee construction and improvement began in

JUNE 2012 PAGE 13

Significant Flood Management Events

2003 Paterno Decision

Sacramento River Basin

1917 Sacramento River Flood

San Joaquin River Basin

Figure 1-2. Chronology of Flood Management-Related Actions in Central Valley

PAGE 14 JUNE 2012

JUNE 2012 PAGE 15

Sacramento River at Bend Bridge Maximum 3-Day Flow 19302007

American River at Fair Oaks Maximum 3-Day Flow 19302008

Sacramento River at I Street/Yolo Bypass Maximum 3-Day Flow 19302007

San Joaquin River at Newman Maximum 3-Day Flow 19302007

San Joaquin River at Vernalis Maximum 3-Day Flow 19302007

Key: cfs = cubic feet per second

Figure 1-3. Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers Hydrographs

PAGE 16 JUNE 2012

1.2.1 Definition of State Plan of Flood Control

the state and federal flood control works, lands, programs,

1.3 Assets Protected by

1.4 Current Problems and Future Trends

clays, and soils, including organic soils that

were conveniently available, often poorly

compacted over permeable foundations. The 300

system was designed to contain the record 200

floods of the early twentieth century with the